[1) PLANNING COMMISSION]
[00:00:14]
>> LET'S GET RIGHT TO, PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, MR. TYNDALL.
ITEM NO. 1, ORDINANCE 71-2021-22.
>> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR.
WAIT UNTIL THE SLIDES GET PULLED UP HERE.
READING) AMENDING THE ZONING ORP OF THE CITY OF CL, APPLICATION OF BEN KIMBROUGH, RS PROPERTIES LLC - BERT SINGLER REQUESTING TO R4.
NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R4 AREA. LLC - BERT SINGLER ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATEDN OF FT. CAMPBELL BLVD. FROM C-5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL CL DISTRICT /R-2 SINY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-4 MULT RPC: APPROVAL/APPL THIS MAY SEEM FAMILIAR.
THIS WAS HEARD AND DENIED AND OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AFTER SPEAKING TO A COUNCIL MEMBER IN THAT AREA.
IT IS PREVIOUS ZONING FROM 2021 IS THERE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT 70/30 SPLIT BETWEEN C5 AND R2 ZONING. REQUESTING ALL TOGETHER TO R4.
HERE'S MILLSWOOD DRIVE LOOKING BACK AT THE PROPERTY ON THE LEFT. ONE OF THE POSSIBLE ENTRANCES TO THE PROPERTY ON MILLSWORTH. THERE IS A FALL ZONE RADIUS, SOME OF THE PROPERTY IS RENDERED UNBUILDABLE DUE TO THAT CELL TOWER IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH IS ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS TO RESPECT THE FALL ZONE. LOOKING BACK TOOTER FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD, SAME ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN OFF LEONARD DRIVE. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO THE BACK. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN YOU CAN JUST ENTER OFF MILLSWORTH OR FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD.
ANOTHER PHOTO OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, THE STREET DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A TRIP GENERATION REPORT AND APPROVED IT.
GRADING PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY WILL BE REQUIRED, A SITE PLAN, AND SHOW THE 100 YEAR BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMENTS OR SUPPLIED.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES PUD PUT THIS AT 218 UNITS.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, PROPOSE R4 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE PROPOSED R4 IS MORE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THE C5 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO THE R2 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT BEHIND IT AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE STIET. RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> AT OUR MEETING WHEN WE RE-ADDRESSED THIS, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A SECOND ENTRANCE ON -- DID I MISS THAT? I WAS HAVING SOME TECHNICAL
DIFFICULTIES. >> PART OF THE REZONING, WE DIDN'T MENTION THAT. IN A MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER, THIS WAS BROUGHT BACK, THAT IS A BETTER POSSIBILITY THIS TIME.
>> BUT IT IS NOT A GUARANTY? >> I CAN'T SAY THAT, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE AGENT OR APPLICANT NEXT WEEK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE DON'T REQUIRE THAT ENTRANCE.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE THAT ENTRANCE OFF FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD, WE LIKE TO SEE IT, THAT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO TELL YOU THAT.
>> AND BECAUSE THEY ALSO INDICATED THERE WOULD BE SIDEWALKS TO THE SCHOOL, I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION, IS THAT CORRECT? IN THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION?
>> WHEN WE DEVELOP NEXT TO SCHOOL SITES, WE TRY TO GET CONNECTS WHERE POSSIBLE. I THINK THE SINKHOLE IS RIGHT THERE. WE MAY HAVE TO GO AROUND IT.
BUT IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET -- >> BUT IT IS NOT IN WRITING, SO
THERE IS NO GUARANTIES. >> THIS IS A REZONING.
I CAN'T TIE CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO A REZONING REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELIMINATION WITH -- ANYONE ELSE WITH QUESTIONS. ORDINANCE 2, MR. TYNDALL,
PLEASE, SIR. >> THIS IS A REQUEST CASE NO.
[00:05:02]
Z802021, HUNDRED WER WINN AND CODE DID I -- CODYHEGGIE.GARDEN TERES INTERSECTION, CITY WARD 7, GRASSLAND AREA WITH A KNOWN SINKHOLE ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.
APPLICANT STATE OF EMERGENCY, BUT OBVIOUSLY, R6 IS A SMALL LOT, SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. WE CAN GO THROUGH THE PHOTOS.
THIS IS AS YOU APPROACH THE PROPERTY.
IT IS THE ONLY CLEARING ON THAT PROPERTY.
YOU SEE IT JUST PAST THERE ON THE LEFT.
ONE OF THE CONDITIONS BEFORE BEING OKAY WITH THIS WAS TO REQUIRE A BASIC PLAN, NO THE A GRADE -- NOT THE FULL GRADING PLAN. THEY DON'T WANT TO EXACERBATE ANY FLOODING IN THE AREA. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN A SMALL CUL-DE-SAC WITH SEVERAL LOTS. 75% OF THIS LOT IS NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, RETAINED AS DRAINAGE WAY AND IMPROVED SO THE FLOODING IS NOT EXACERBATED. SOME OF THESE OLDER HOMES PREDATE ZONING AND THERE ARE DUPLEX AND TRI-PLEX CONVERSIONS.
EVEN THOUGH IT IS R2, THERE IS A BIG MIX OF SINGLE FAMILIES AND DUPLEXES AND TRI-PLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU CAN SEE THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THESE HOUSES ALSO MATCHES WHEN A R6 UNIT WOULD BRING IN TERMS OF SQUARE TOOTAGE.
SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE NEW ROAD SECTION.
GRADING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED. THEY DID GET THAT PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN AND HAD NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
YOU CAN SEE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMENTS REGARDING.
THE ADOPTED LAND USE ENCOURAGES A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. CITY STREET DEPARTMENT WILL ADDRESS DRAINAGE CONCERNS AT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> QUESTIONS FOR MR. TYNDALL REGARDING THIS.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH. >> WERE THERE ANY OPPOSITIONS TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA? THEY ARE SMALL LOTS? NO ONE CAME TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS.
WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OR PHONE CALLS ON THIS ONE.
>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS.
>> THIS IS AN EMPTY LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A LONG PERIOD BECAUSE IT IS KNOWN DRAINAGE ISSUES.
ARE WE NOT CONCERNED THAT WE ARE CREATING A BUYER BEWARE BY BUILDING SO CLOSE AND CROWDING INTO A KNOWN AREA THAT ALREADY FLOODS AND IS A DRAINED AREA FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER TO SOME OF THAT TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT. WHAT I CAN SAY, WHEN WE BUILD NEW LOTS, THEY ARE AT LEAST WHERE THE HOUSE IS BEING BUILT, A FOOT ABOVE FLOODPLAIN. THERE WILL BE GRADING DONE ON THIS PROPERTY. THEY WILL LIKELY HAVE TO DIG OUT AROUND WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD, BUILD THAT DIRT HIGHER.
TWO ACRES OF R6 COULD YIELD UP TO 30 UNITS.
THEY ARE ONLY ASKING FOR 6 TO 8. I SAW THE LITTLE SKETCH PLAN THEY DID. ONLY ONE LITTLE ROAD, SIX OR EIGHT LOTS AROUND IT. THE MAJORITY BEHIND IT WILL BE LEFT OVER FOR DRAINAGEWAY AND LIKELY DEEPENED, TO KEEP MORE VOLUME IN THERE, AND HAVE MORE OF AN OUT FLOW CONTROL.
RIGHT NOW, IT JUST FLOWS RIGHT ACROSS THE PROPERTY.
THIS WILL PROVIDE MORE OF A STORM WATER TENSION, SLOW THE
WATER DOWN. >> COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLEMAN.
>> I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
I ALSO SPOKE WITH SOME RESIDENTS.
INITIALLY THE RESIDENTS DID EXPRESS SOME CONCERN.
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS R4, NOT R6. I HAVE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT AND I BELIEVE ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS REGARDING THIS CASE? NOW READY FOR ITEM THREE, ORDINANCE 73-2021-22,
[00:10:05]
MR. TYNDALL. >> APPLICATION NUMBER D81, APPLICATION OF CLARKLAND DEVELOPMENT, AGENT IS BERT STINGLETEARY. IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R4, THERE IS R4 IN THE AREA. IT IS TWO LOTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF PROFESSIONAL PARK DRIVE AND STOWE COURT.
IT IS A GRASS FIELD. THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS THE LAND USE CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
MULTIFAMILY USE WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE OFFICES TO THE NORTH AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH. PRIORITY 2010, IN THE 01 DISTRICT, YOU WERE PERMITTED TO DO MULTIFAMILY ABOUT HALF THIS 01 OFF OF PROFESSIONAL PARK DRIVE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS MULTIFAMILY OVER TIME. THE OTHER HALF DEVELOPED AS OFFICE SPACE. THERE'S ONLY ABOUT THREE REMAINING VACANT LOTS OUT THERE. AFTER THIS, THERE MAYBE ONLY ONE OR TWO, IF YOU CONSIDER THIS ONE LOT.
HERE IT IS, LOOKING ACROSS PROFESSIONAL PARK DRIVE, THE OTHER MULTIFAMILY IN THE AREA. THOSE ARE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS BEHIND IT. THERE'S THE MULTIFAMILY TO THE SIDE. STOWE COURT.
THAT BACKS UP TO THE PARK. THE STREET DEPARTMENT SAID THEY WILL HAVE TO REQUIRE SIDEWALKS ON PROFESSIONAL DRIVE AND STOWE COURT. YOU SEE THE SCHOOL COMMENTS.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD BE 52 UNITS.
THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD LAY OF LAND, THEY MAY GET TO THAT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN. R4 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH SURROUNDING USES. PRIORITY THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE ALLOWED.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> ECONOMIES, QUESTIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE 73? SEEING NONE, READY FOR ITEM NO. 4, ORDINANCE 74- 2021-22.
>> THIS IS APPLICATION OF JONATHAN BLICK.
.96 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED R2, REQUESTING TO GO TO C2.
IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE C2 TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.
IT IS THREE PARCELS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LIBERTY PARKWAY AND DELMAR DRIVE. IT IS THREE LOTS, TWO OF WHICH HAVE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON SITE AND APPLICANTS STATEMENT IS TO MIRROR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. KROGER, OLD RITE-AID.
PROPERTIES BEHIND RITE-AID ON THE RIGHT SIDE BY OUR SIGN.
THIS IS LOOKING DOWN DELMAR. THE HOUSE THERE, THE ONE BEHIND IT WHERE THE YELLOW TRUCK IS THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION.
THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET. LOOKING BACK UP DELMAR TO THE SITE. ANOTHER ANGLE OF THE SITE LOOKING BACK TOWARDS MADISON STREET.
THERE WERE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.
THE STREET DEPARTMENT DID SAY A GRADING PERMIT WILL BE LIKELY, POSSIBLE DETENTION WILL BE REQUIRED.
THE SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMENTS. HISTORIC AL WOULD BE 11 UNITS.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE YET. IT MAY BE TO REHABILITATION UNIT INTO DUPLEXES AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN.
C2 ZONING REQUEST IS AN EXTENSION.
GENERAL GOODS AND SERVICES WITH THE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL. MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
APPROVING. >> ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ITEM 4 ORDINANCE 74. SEEING NONE, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 5. MR. TYNDALL.
>> THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z83-2021, ALSO AN
[00:15:05]
APPLICATION FROM JONATHAN BLICK. THIS IS R2 REQUESTING TO GO TO R2D. R2D IS DUPLEXES ON A SINGLE LOT.TRACT LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN SYCAMORE DRIVE.
IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
IT IS A WOODED TRACK. THIS IS THE TOPOGRAPHY MAP.
YOU CAN SEE ARE THE TOPOGRAPHY FALLS OFF.
A LITTLE BIT OF GRADING YOU CAN DO AND GET ONE MORE BUILDING LOT. SO THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET A DUPLEX SIMILAR TO THAT COURT, THE APPLICATION AN I WILL EARLIER, APPLICATIONS IN THE HOME ARE MIXED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INTO DUPLEXES AS WELL. HERE'S THE ROAD PROPERTY AT THE END OF THE ROAD. IT WAS A LITTLE RAINY THAT DAY.
WE DIDN'T GET GREAT PHOTOS. BUT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SEE THE SITE. YOU WILL SEE WHY IT IS ONLY GOING TO BE ONE PROPERTY. GAS AND WATER SAID IT WILL REQUIRE SIX-INCH OFFSET WATER LINE EXTENSION AND FIRE HYDRANT.
SITE DISTANCE WILL HAVE TO BE EVALUATED DURING SITE PLAN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE MAIN ROAD OUT THERE.
THERE WERE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS RECEIVED, YOU CAN SEE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMENTS REGARDING THEIR SYSTEM HISTORIC AL ESTIMATES, TWO UNITS, ONE LOT.
PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. R2D TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN PRESENTS DESIRABLE HOUSING TYPES. NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 6, ORDINANCE 76. MR. TYNDALL.
>> CASE Z85-2021-BBMH INVESTMENTS.
THIS IS TWO LOTS TOTALING .78 ACRES.
CURRENTLY ZONED R3, REQUESTING TO GO TO R4.
IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE R4 CLASSIFICATION.
THESE TWO PARCELS FRONT THE EASTERN RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CEDAR COURT. THIS IS IN CITY COUNCIL WARD NO.
6. IT IS TWO LOTS WITH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND VARYING MILD TOPOGRAPHY, APPLICANTS INTENT IS TO EXTEND THE ZONE. PROPERTIES HERE ON THE LEFT JUST AFTER THIS HOUSE. THE HOME ON THERE WOULD LIKELY BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
HERE'S ONE OF THE LOTS AND THEN THE OTHER ONE, THE ONE THERE WITH THE HOME ON IT. THAT'S LOOKING BACK UP TOWARD PROVIDENCE BOULEVARD AREA. THE DEPARTMENTS HAD NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES PUT THIS AT 9 UNITS COMBINED. THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R4 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT APPEARS TO BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IS AN EXTENSION OF THE R4. AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
PLAN COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS. >> THAT'S A VERY NARROW ROAD THERE. ARE THEY GOING TO WIDEN THAT ROAD WHERE THE APARTMENTS ARE AT? IT NARROWS AS IT COMES
FURTHER IN. >> THE STREET DEPARTMENT DIDN'T MAKE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT WIDENING IT.
IT IS AT THE END OF THAT ROAD, SO THERE IS OBSERVABLE -- ONLY TWO LOTS BEYOND IT. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS ABOUT THE ROADWAY FROM THE STREET DEPARTMENT.
>> IT IS LIKELY A DEVELOPER, A SITE LOS ANGELES -- PLAN IS
[00:20:04]
SUBM WIDTH OF THE ROAD AND TRAFFIC IN>> COUNCILPERSON SMITH. >> ANY OPPOSITIONS FROM ANY OF THE CITIZENS IN THAT AREA? AND DO I AGREE WITH THE LAST SPEAKER, THAT THE ROAD IS REAL NARROW AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME INGRESS AND EGRESS ADDED TO THAT ROAD FOR TRAFFIC, AND SAFER
TRAFFIC. >> I WILL ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION. THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MAJORITY OF THESE LOTS, ESPECIALLY TO THE SOUTH, THAT'S THE CITY'S WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPERTY. SO IT IS SURROUNDED BY VACANT PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH.
THERE'S A COUPLE UNITS TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH.
NOT A LOT OF FOLKS IMMEDIATELY AROUND THIS PROPERTY.
>> THAT WILL MAKE IT LOOK BETTER IF THEY TEAR DOWN THAT HOUSE.
>> AS FAR AS THE ROAD GOES, SAME COMMENT AS BEFORE.
I EITHER DEFER TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT OR LOOKED AT THE SITE
PLAN PHASE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 7.
ORDINANCE 77, MR. TYNDALL. >> THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z86-2021, APPLICATION OF JRS DEVELOPMENT, REX HAWKINS IS THE AGENT. THIS WAS A TAX SALE PROPERTY.
4.91 ACRES. CURRENTLY ZONED R1, REQUESTING TO GO TO R4. IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE R4 IN THE AREA. PARCEL IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF UNION HALL ROAD, COUNCIL WARD 11.
PROPERTY UNDEVELOPED LOTS WITH STRUCTURES OF VARYING CONDITIONING. THE APPLICANTS STATEMENT, R4 IS ADJACENT ZONING AND AFFORD MULTIFAMILY OPTIONS.
TWO CUTOUTS ON THE PROPERTY. THE MOVEMENT TO THE NORTH IS A CEMETERY THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED AS THE TAX SALE.
THE NOTCH TO THE EAST WAS A PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED IN THE TAX SALE, SO THEY WILL BUILD AROUND THAT OR EVENTUALLY ACQUIRE THAT IF THEY COULD. THAT'S NOT INCLUDED AT THIS TIME WITH THIS APPLICATION. I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE DRIVEN BY THIS SITE. THIS IS UNION HALL ROAD, THE PROPERTY IS THAT TREE LINED BACK THERE ON THE LEFT.
THIS IS THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER THAT WOULD COME DOWN AS PART OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.
THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY, UNION HALL AND NEEDMORE, THIS IS FURTHER UP LOOKING BACK TOWARD THE PROPERTY. THE CEMETERY AND THE TREED AREA RIGHT THERE. THIS IS THE ONE REMAINING HOUSE THAT PROPERTY GOES AROUND. COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENTS, CITY STREET DEPARTMENT SAID THEY MUST FOLLOW THE ACCESS ORDINANCE.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 58 UNITS, IT IS AN ODDLY SHAPED PIECE OF PROPERTY SO SETBACKS WILL LIKELY RECOMMEND THAT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.
PROPOSED R4 APPEARS TO BE IN CHARACTER WITH SURROUNDING AREA, EXTENSION OF THE R4. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE AND NO ADVERSE VIEMPLETAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL? ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ITEM 7? SEEING NONE. ITEM 8, ORDINANCE 78.
>> THANK YOU. LAST MONTH THE COUNCIL VOTED BY A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX 12 ACRES. AT THE TIME WE TYPICALLY WILL BRING IN AN ORDINANCE TO REAPPORTION THAT NEWLY ANNEXED PROPERTY INTO THE CITY VOTING DISTRICTS.
HOWEVER, THE -- I DIDN'T WANT TO CONFUSE THIS WITH THE ONGOING REAPPORTIONMENT OF ALL THE WARDS.
WE HELD OFF A MONTH. NOW THAT THE PAST SECOND READING LAST MONTH FOR ALL THE WARDS, WE ARE BRINGING THIS IN FOR AN ORDINANCE TO ADD THE ANNEXED PORTION INTO WARD 7 WHERE IT BELONGS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE?
>> ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE? SEEING NONE. ITEM 9, RESOLUTION 39.
>> ITEM 9 AND 10, I WILL COVER THEM BOTH ON THIS SLIDE.
WHEN YOU ANNEX A PIECE OF PROPERTY, SIX MONTHS LATER REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY HAS ALL THE SERVICES FROM THE START OR NOT, YOU HAVE TO DO A FOLLOWUP PROGRESS REPORT OR PLAN SERVICE PROGRESS REPORT, AND SO RESOLUTION 39 REGARDS THE ANNEXATION A1-2021 AFTER OF SHAW DRIVE.
[00:25:01]
ALL ITEMS WERE COMPLETED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CDE EXTENSION. CDE REPORTS IT IS INTENDED TO BE COMPLETED IN THE FIRST HALF OF 2022.BOTH ADVERTISED IN THE PAPER. WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE THE ONE THAT HAS THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION WITH THAT WORDING IN THE PAPER. RESOLUTION 40 IS WHAT WE CALL A FINAL PLAN OF SERVICE REPORT. IT CLOSES OUT THE PLAN OF SERVICE. ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED FOR RESOLUTION 40 OR ANNEXATION TO BRITTON SPRINGS ROAD AND KAY LANE. ANNEXATION ONE WILL BRING IT BACK HERE, ONCE THE POWER GETS TO THE PROPERTY, THEN WE WILL BRING IT IN FOR A FINAL PLAN OF SERVICE.
IF AT THE END OF 12 MONTHS, IT IS NOT DONE, WE CAN EXTEND IT ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. I ANTICIPATE CDE WILL HAVE THIS DONE IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. SO THAT WILL BE TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS, THOSE DO REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS NEXT WEEK.
>> ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ITEMS 9 AND 10, RESOLUTIONS 39 AND 40? SEEING NONE, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 11, RESOLUTION 41,
MR. TYNDALL. >> WE HAVE ABANDONMENT BEFORE YOU TODAY. THIS IS ABANDONMENT OF AN UNAPPROVED ALLEY THAT PARALLELS WOODMONT BOULEVARD.
IT RUNS THE REAR OF ALL THOSE PROPERTIES.
THERE'S NO UTILITIES, NO PAVEMENT, NO NOTHING IN THERE.
SO THIS IS A PRETTY EASY ONE OF THE ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTED IT. WE HAVE SENT A LETTER TO EACH AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER, NO OPPOSITION TO IT.
AND ONCE COMPLETED, THAT PORTION OF THE ALLEY WILL BE VACATED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ALLOWING ACCESS THROUGH ONE OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES TO THE REAR.
THAT'S THE ULTIMATE GOAL HERE. WE ARE KEEPING THE NORTH/SOUTH PORTION OF THIS ALLEY JUST EAST OF WHERE THIS REQUEST IS AS A PUBLIC ALLEY AT THIS TIME. WE WILL ADDRESS THAT POTENTIAL LATER. THERE IS A BIT OF AN ENCROACHMENT EASIER. EASIER TO DO THE BACK OF THE EASEMENT AT THIS TIME. O ALLEY.
WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY EASEMENTS BE MAINTAINED AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
>> QUESTIONS REGARDING RESOLUTION 41? SEEING NONE, ANYTHING ELSE, MR. TYNDALL.
[2) CONSENT AGENDA]
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL. >> THANK YOU.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MA'AM CLERK. >> ALL ITEMS IN THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND NONCONTROVERSIAL BY THE COUNCIL AND MAY BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION.
HOWEVER, A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FOR A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE APPROPRIATE.
1. ORDINANCE 60-2D READING) AMENDING THE ZONING ORD MAP OF THE CITY O, APPLICATION OF REDA HOME BUILDEE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED N OF TWIN RIVERS RD. AND NOLEN RDE FAMILY RESIDENTIA4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIST 2. ORDINANCE 61-2D READING) AMENDING THE ZONING ORD MAP OF THE CITY O, APPLICATION OF BRIAN R. WOLFF, R ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF MCCORMICK E FAMILY RESIDENTIA4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIST 3. ORDINANCE 62-2D READING) AMENDING THE ZONING ORD MAP OF THE CITY O, APPLICATION OF BIBLE BAPTIST CHE ON PROPERTY LOCATED N OF SANGO RD. AND WOODY LN. FROMT TO R-5 RESIDENTIAL DT ORDINANCE 64-2021) AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AD MAP OF THE CITY O, APPLICATION OF QUIKTRIP CORP. FN PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF T OF I-24, & EAST OF THE ROSSVIEWM C-4 HIGHWAY INTERO C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ORDINANCE 65-2021) AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AD AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AD MAP OF THE CITY O, APPLICATION OF WINN PROPERTIES N PROPERTY LOCATED N OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BLVD. FROM C-4 HIGHWAY INTERO C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ORDINANCE 66-2021) AMENDING THE CITY ZONING ORDINAE OF THE CITY OF CL, TENNESSEE, AS IT PERTAINS TO PLT DEVELOPMENTS AND MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT S ORDINANCE 68-2021) ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF CERTAL
[00:30:04]
PROPERTY FROM THEO THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FOR RIGS FOR THE SPRING CREEK Y 8. RESOLUTION 37-G APPOINTMENTS TO THE ACCESS BOARF APPEALS, AIRPORT , HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, ANDG COMMISION: RESOLUTION 38, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE SALE OF WINE AT PUBLIX.CPD NO CRIMINAL HISTORY. ADOPTION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBE.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM CLERK. COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THE THOUGHT INTO THE NEW APPOINTEES TO THE HRC. I THINK THE FOLKS YOU PRESENTED WOULD BE A GREAT ASSET TO THE HRC, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> I NEED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON TWO OF THESE ITEMS. THE QUICK TRIP CORP, ORDINANCE 64, I SPOKE HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF THIS LAST MONTH AND NOT CHANGING THAT, HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO MAKE EVERYONE AWARE THAT I HAVE GOTTEN FOUR OR FIVE EMAILS AND AT LEAST ONE PHONE CALL OF PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED, MANY OF THE SAME CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED HERE. TRAFFIC, AND THE SCHOOL.
I WANTED TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT AND FAIR TO THE CONSTITUENTS THAT REACHED OUT TO ME IN THAT REGARD.
AND THEN I ACTUALLY HAVE A PERSONAL REQUEST, DO WE HAVE TWO COUNCIL PEOPLE ON THE AIRPORT LIAISON COMMITTEE?
>> NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF. >> THIS SAYS THAT MY COLLEAGUE IS REPLACING MR. GARRETT, BUT I -- IF I AM NOT ON THERE, I
NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT. >> LET ME CHECK AND GET BACK TO
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONSENT?
[3) FINANCE COMMITTEE]
SEEING NONE, WE ARE NOW READY FOR FINANCIAL COMNS.FINANCE COMMITTEE. COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
>> ORDINANCE 692021-22, AUTHORIZING THE DONATION OF SWAN LAKE TENNIS COURT LIGHTING TO THE CLARKSVILLE ACADEMY.
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE DID VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS.
WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE GETTING NEW TENNIS COURT LIGHTING AT SWAN LAKE, ONCE OUR LIGHTS ARE TAKEN DOWN, CLARKSVILLE ACADEMY HAS ASKED IF THEY CAN HAVE THOSE SO WE WILL BE GIVING THEM TO THEM AFTER WE HAVE REPLACED OUR LIGHTING AT SWAN LAKE TENNIS COURTS.
IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRY
AND ANSWER THEM? >> ANY QUESTIONS.
>> COUNCILPERSON BUTLER. >> I GUESS IT IS NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT I'M KIND OF CONCERNED WITH, LIKE, HOW DO WE DECIDE WHO WE'RE GOING TO DONATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO? CLARKSVILLE ACADEMY IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS.
I HAVE AN ISSUE, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH DONATING BUT I TAKE ISSUE WITH, LIKE, THE FACT THAT THERE'S A BUNCH OF OTHER SCHOOLS, TOO. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE YOU HAVE
SOMETHING TO ASSUAGE. >> IF NECESSARY, I CAN REACH OUT TO THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR. CLARKSVILLE ACADEMY CAME TO US.
WE WOULD HAVE PUT THEM ON GOV DEALS.
BUT THEY CAME AND ASKED FOR THEM.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN, THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN. >> NEXT ITEM, ORDINANCE 07-2021-22, AN ORDER NANGS ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT PURPOSES FOR THE ALLEN ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
FINANCE COMMITTEE DID VOTE FOR APPROVAL ON THIS AND ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THEM.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.
CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN. >> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER,
NEXT COMMITTEE REPORT IS GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON
>> I WILL HAVE A COMPLETE REPORT NEXT WEEK.
>> PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE.
>> I WILL HAVE A REPORT NEXT WEEK.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, BACK TO YOU.
>> I WILL HAVE A REPORT NEXT WEEK.
>> SENSE A THEME HERE. TRANSPORTATION STREETS, GARAGE
COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON SMITH. >> I WILL HAVE A REPORT NEXT
THANK YOU. I SEE NO ITEMS NEW NEW BUSINESS,
[10) MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS]
[00:35:01]
COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.>> GOOD EVENING, ON YOUR TABLE I LIED THESE HANDOUTS OUT EARLIER, I PUT THEM ON YOUR ZESK. I ATTENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS MONTH AND I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT. SR74-2021 IS A SITE REVIEW PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED ON TINY TOWN AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE COLORED ONE, WITH THE MAP ON IT, YOU SEE THERE'S A RED LINE COMING FROM PRINCETON DRIVE.
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, FOLEY BEACH DRIVE.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE ROADS THAT HAVE STUBS AND WERE BUILT TO BE CONSIDERED EVENTUALLY TO BE JOINED AS ACCESS ROADS ON THIS PROPERTY. IF YOU RECALL A FEW MONTHS AGO, WE APPROVED THIS REZONING AND I ASKED WHY WE WERE REZONING IN ONE C5 AND R4 IN THE SAME VOTE. WELL, WHEN IT CAME TO THE SITE REVIEW PLAN, THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC ROAD ON THE PROPERTY. HE INDICATED EVEN THOUGH THE STREET DEPARTMENT, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY SENSIBLE THING THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, THEIR PLAN IS TO CONNECT THOSE ROADS AND MAKE A BACK ACCESS INTO THESE BUSINESSES SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GET ON TINY TOWN ROAD AND GET OFF AND CONNECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON A PUBLIC ROAD. IT IS VERY SENSIBLE.
I THINK IT WAS GOOD PLANNING ON THE STREET DEPARTMENT.
WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT WAS REMOVED AND DENIED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY INDICATED THAT THEY APPROVED IT TO BE A PRIVATE ROAD. SO JUST IMAGINE ON A SNOW DAY, I'M OUT PLOWING THE ROADS AND I'M A STREET DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, I'M GOING TO PLOW UP TO THAT AREA, THEN I'M GOING TO PULL OUT ON TO TINY TOWN, PLOW ON THE OTHER SIDE.
WE DON'T PLOW PRIVATE DRIVES. THEY HAVE ALLOWED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS ROAD BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT AND LEAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS ON THIS ROAD. SO WHEN WE LISTEN AND WE TALK ABOUT, THESE THINGS WILL BE APPROVED AT SITE REVIEW PLANS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY GO INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I THINK THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE A PUBLIC ROAD. SO THEY COULD BE CONNECTED IN THE FUTURE. THE SECOND DIAGRAM SHOWS THAT THE FRONT OF THIS WILL BE C5. AND THE BACK SIDE WILL BE APARTMENTS OR OTHER MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING.
AGAIN, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY GOOD PLANNING ON THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THAT THEY DENIED IT AND ALLOWED THE PEOPLE TO JUST MAKE THAT A PRIVATE ROAD. I THINK THAT THAT SHORT SIGHTED, AND IN 15, 20 YEARS, WHEN THE ROAD STARTS TO CRUMBLE OR WHEN IT SNOWS, IT IS GOING TO BE THE STREET DEPARTMENT WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THE CALLS. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WHEN I'M ASKING QUESTIONS, IT IS BECAUSE THEY SAY IT WILL BE AT STREET DEPARTMENT, STREET DEPARTMENT MAKES COMMENTS, BUT OUR STREET DEPARTMENT, IN MY OPINION, IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS I HAVE ATTENDED, THEY DON'T ALWAYS GET THE SUPPORT THEY SHOULD. I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> NO QUESTIONS. COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU CAN
I TRIED TO -- I WASN'T SURE WHEN TO ASK THIS.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. TYNDALL.
WONDERING, LIKE, IS IT OBVIOUSLY NOT JANUARY'S REGULAR MEETING, BECAUSE WE ARE ABOUT TO DO THAT. BUT AT FEBRUARY'S MEETING, IS THAT WHEN WE'RE GOING TO START REFERRING TO DIFFERENT WARDS AS DIFFERENT WARDS? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THE ZONING CASE THIS METROPOLITAN ARE STILL, THE WARDS DON'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL THE FIRST OF THE YEAR.
WHEN WE HAD OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WE JUST KEPT IT AT THE CURRENT, RIGHT NOW WE ARE STILL UNDER THE CURRENT WARDS FOR A FEW MORE DAYS. SO IN THE NEXT MONTHS, YOU WILL HAVE YOUR FUTURE WARDS WILL BE REPRESENTED IN THAT WARD LIST.
>> COOL, THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON EVANS.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK STATEMENT. SORRY, I'M SHAKING, IT IS, LIKE -- I'M KIND OF SAD ABOUT IT I WASN'T REALLY SURE WHEN THE
[00:40:01]
RIGHT TIME WOULD BE TO TELL THE PUBLIC BUT MY LAST MEETING I'M GOING TO BE ATTENDING IS FEBRUARY 3RD REGULAR SESSION BECAUSE MY PARTNER HAS GOTTEN ORDERS FOR FORT BRAGG, WE WILL GOING TO NORTH CAROLINA. I KNOW THAT THE WARD WILL BE CHANGING BY THE TIME MY LAST MEETING WILL BE, SO I JUST WANTED TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW IN CASE ANYBODY WAS OUT THERE WANTING TO SCOOP UP MY SEAT. SO THANK YOU.>> WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
AND DON'T GO AWAY TOO QUICKLY, WE HAVE WORK TO DO.
ALL RIGHT. COUNCILPERSON HOLLEMAN.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I HAVE A COOL VIDEO TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY. IT IS DONE BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. IT IS LIKE ONE OUT OF SIX VIDEOS THAT THEY ARE DOING. ABOUT TWO MINUTES LONG.
IT IS A REALLY GOOD VIDEO, PUT TOGETHER REALLY, REALLY WELL, IT HIGHLIGHTS CLARKSVILLE. I WANTED TO SHARE IT.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON IT. >> THANK YOU.
[00:45:03]
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT VIDEO MAKES CLARKSVILLE LOOK VERY COOL.
THANKS FOR SHARING THAT. IT IS REALLY COOL.
[11) PUBLIC COMMENTS]
>> OKAY. WE ARE NOW READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. SEEING NONE.
WE ARE ADJOURNED. SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.
HAPPY NEW YEAR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.