[1) PLANNING COMMISSION ]
[00:00:38]
THE MICROPHONE LOOK A THING IGS WILL BE CLAPPING FOR ME IN AN HOUR AND A HALF FROM NOW.
COUPLE ZONING CASE IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT.
APPLICATION OF MARK DAVIS AND THE AGENT OF POLY.
>> THIS IS IN CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 6.
IT'S RECTANGULAR TRACK WITH MULTIPLE TYPES OF FILL ON SITE. THEY WISH TO DO A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE MAP, NO R-6 SORT OF IN THIS PORTION OF THE AVENUE YET.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT ZONES DEPICTED ON THIS MAP. THIS IS SITE I'M SURE A LOT OF YOU HAVE BEEN BE THIS OVER THE YEARS.
IT'S KIND OF GROWN FROM NOTHING TO WHERE THAT BULLDOZER IS JUST A HIGHER PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THERE'S A LOOK DOWN CROSSLAND.
KELLY ON THE RIGHT. AND THERE'S A LOOK FROM KELLY BACK UP TOWARDS THE PROPERTY.
ACROSS THE STREET IS ZONED M-2 AND PROPANE DISTRIBUTION SITE. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS THIS MAY REQUIRE WATER SYSTEM UPGRADES. SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF R-6 ZONING. THEY MUST FOLLOW CITY ACCESS ORDINANCE. CROSSLAND IS AN ARTERIAL.
YOU CAN'T HAVE DRIVEWAYS ON TO IT.
THEY ARE NEED FOR AN ALLEY OR FRONTAGE ROAD TO SERVE THE PROPERTIES IF THEY SUBDIVIDE IT.
NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS. HISTORICAL ESTIMATE WOULD PUT THIS AT 7 UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSE ZONED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE PRO R-6 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE.
SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED AND A REVIEWED AS PART OF THE PROCESS. THE PARCEL HAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF FILL ON SITE IT WILL BE REMOVED ON COME P COMPACTSION TEST. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION
REGARDING THIS CASE? >> SEEING NONE.
WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 2NANCE 97-2021-22.
>> MR. TYNDA. >> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z-102020. APPLICATION OF JUANITA CHARLES. REQUESTING TO GO FROM R-3 TO R-4. IT'S NOT EXTENSION OF R-4 BUT VERY CLOSE. YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP IT'S PRACTICALLY TOUCHES ON THE CORNER THERE.
THE PROMPT FRONTS PLUM STREET APPROXIMATELY 690 FEET NORTH OF PLUM STREET AND E STREET INTERSECTION.
CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 4. IT'S TWO PARCELS CURRENTLY WOODED AND AREAS OVERGROWN WITH VEGETATION.
ONE STRUCTURE ON THE PARCEL AND THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS IS PLUM STREET LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE PROPERTY.
IT'S FAIRLY NARROW. IT WAS RECENTLY REPAVED BY THE CITY. HERE'S THE PARCEL IN
[00:05:06]
QUESTION. VERY WOODED, VERY OVERGROWN.THERE'S SOME COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
THIS WILL REQUIRE OFF SITE WATER UPGRADES.
>>THE ROAD IS TEN-FEET WIDE AND THERE'S 20-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABLE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE TURN AROUND REQUIRED.
AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT, AND THEY WILL LIKELY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS NEXT WEEK, THEY HAVE PLAN THAT ALLOWS TURNING EVACUATE TO ENTER THE SITE AT THE NORTH PORTION AND EXIT AT THE SOUTH PORTION IN LOOP.
INSTEAD OF CUL-DE-SAC THAT ARE PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE WAY AROUND. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
HISTORY CAM ESTIMATES WOULD BE 24 UNITS.
I EXPECT IT TO BE LESS BECAUSE OF THE ODD SHAPE OF THE LOT. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO SETBACKS WHICH WILL CUTDOWN THAT ESTIMATE A LITTLE BIT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE REQUEST IS CONSIST WANLT THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING WATER AND STREET MUST BE UPGRADED TO LEVEL BEING ACCEPTABLE BY CLARKSVILLE GAS AND WATER, STREET DEPARTMENT AND FIRE AND RESCUE PRIOR TO RELEASE OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. NO ADVERSE VARMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >> ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION FROM COUNCIL REGARDING ORDINANCE.
>> WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 3, ORDINANCE NUMBER 98.
>> THIS PLANNING COMMISSION CAME Z-11 IN 2022.
.17 ACRES ZONED R-3 REQUESTING TO GO TO R-6.
IT'S NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONE.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS EAST COLLEGE STREET.
685 WEST OF FRANKLIN STREET IN EAST COLLEGE STREET INTERSECTION. AND CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 6. IT'S A VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOT CURRENTLY. THE APPLICANT STATEMENT TO FOR REDEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
HERE'S EAST COLLEGE STREET LOOKING UP TOWARDS THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR RECENTLY FINISHED HOUSE.
AND HERE'S THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET BACK TOWARDS COLLEGE STREET PROPER. THE ONLY COMMENT RECEIVED SIDEWALKS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR R-6 ZONING.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES ARE TWO LOTS, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY SQUEEZE THREE LOTS IN THERE. IT HAS 76 FEET OF FRONTAGE.
THOSE WOULD BE NARROW LOTS ON THERE BUT COULD BE TWO OR THREE LOTS. APPLICANT DIDN'T INDICATE WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO YET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.
PRO PROESED R-6 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER AND AT ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE AND SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR R-6 AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I CAN ASK NEXT WEEK. DID YOU GET TO TALK TO MR. SKINNER ABOUT THE TREE? DID THAT COME UP IN THE
MEETING AT ALL? >> THE NEIGHBOR HAS ASKED ABOUT THE TREE THAT IS -- IT WASSEN THEIR PROPERTY.
RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THERE SEEMS TO BE ABOUT 200-YEAR-OLD TREE. HE WAS AT THE MEETING AND HEARD THE COMMENTS. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. WE DON'T HAVE A TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE WHEN IT COMES TO TREES ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY LIKE THAT. >> COOL, THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE
WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 4. ORDINANCE 99.
2021-2 # 2. >> THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSIONCATION Z-12-2022. APPLICATION OF SAMUEL RENISON. .51 ACRE CURRENTLY ZONED R-1 REQUESTING TO GO TO R-2. IT'S NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION. I WILL STATE THIS IS KIND OF CASE WE TYPICALLY GET IN THE COUNTY A COUPLE OF TIMES OF YEAR. THE CASE WHERE THE PROMPT IS SLIGHTLY TOO NARROW WHEN SUBDIVIDED TO BUILD ON AND THEY NEED TO REZONE TO NEXT CLASSIFICATION DOWN TO HAVE THE LOT WIDTH TO BUILD ON A VACANT SITE.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS ED MINSON FERRY ROAD.
[00:10:07]
AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S A LONG NARROW WOODED TRACK WITH DRAINAGE DITCH ALONG THE ROADWAY.YOU ACTUALLY ALMOST FEEL LIKE YOU ARE IN THE COUNTY HERE WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
THERE'S THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
STILL WOODED. NOTHING HAS BEEN BUILT ON IT. HERE'S ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS SUCH A LOVELY SITE OUT THERE. THERE WERE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERN FROM THE OTHER DEPARTMENT.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD BE 1 HOUSING UN-ITALIAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH LAND-LOOSE PLAN. R THE-2 BRINGS THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE AND DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND AT ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED. PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.
ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 99?
>> SEEING NONE WE'RE READY FOR ITEM FIVE, ORDINANCE
100. >>> CASE NUMBER Z-13-2022 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION OF JOHN AND JAMES CLARK. AGENT AGENT THE LANDMARK GROUP. THIS 2.04 ACRES OF CURRENTLY ZONED R-1 REQUESTING TO GO TO R-6.
IT'S NOT AN EXTENSION OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
FRONTS THE SOUTH FRONTAGE 2000 FEET WEST OF NEEDMOORE ROAD AND EAST BOY SCOUT ROAD.
IT'S A WOODED TRACK. THEY WANT TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES OVERLOOKING THE RIVER.
AS THE SIDE NOTE HERE, UNFORTUNATELY IT'S CUT OFF ON MY SHEET EAR. THIS DOES HAVE RECENT ZONING HISTORY. THE R-4 ACROSS THE STREET AND THIS PROPERTY WERE PART OF THE CASE IN LAST SIX MONTHS. OF BEING REZONED WHERE THEY REQUESTED R-4 ACROSS THE STREET AND R-1 FOR THIS PROPERTY. THEY REQUEST TO COME BACK IN FOR R-1. I WANT TO BRING THAT UP, BECAUSE THAT CASE WAS APPROVED.
THEY CAN COME FORWARD WITH ANOTHER ZONING CASE IF THAT CASE WAS DENIED. THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR OR GET SPECIAL PERMISSION TO COME BACK.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASE YOU SEE SOMETHING LESS THAN A YEAR. BUT BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED IT GETS TO BE HEARD AGAIN. THERE'S SOME PICTURES.
HERE'S THE PROPERTY. NEEDMOORE ROAD TO THE BACK.
PROPERTY ON THE LEFT. THE RECENTLY REZONED PROPERTY WOULD BE ON YOUR RIGHT.
ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND NOW LOOKING BACK TOWARDS NEEDMOORE ROAD.
THE NARROWNESS OF THE ROAD WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE FIR DEPARTMENT AND STREET DEPARTMENT.
THE STREET DEPARTMENT WILL REQUIRE EAST BOY SCOUT ROAD TO BE WIDENED ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
SIDEWALKS REQUIRED AS PART OF R-#.
FIRE DEPARTMENT ROADWAY CONCERNS BUT WITH THE WIDENING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE R-4, THE C-5 TO THE EAST AND THIS PROPERTY, EAST BOY SCOUT WILL THEN HAVE ADEQUATE WIDTH FROM THERE BACK TO NEEDMOORE ROAD FOR THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT. HISTORICAL ESTIMATE COULD PUT THIS AS 9 UNITS. STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE PROPOSED R-6 RESIDENTIAL IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. AND I WILL JUST EXPOUND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT. WE SAW THE R-4 ACROSS THE STREET AND R-4 MIND THAT, THERE ARE A FEW AG LOTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. THE OVERALL DENSITY HERE HAS BEEN INCREASING OVER THE YEARS.
THE PROPERTY ALSO HAS ACCESS TO BILLY DUNLAP PARK.
RETAIL GOODS AND SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE EAST.
THE ADOPTED LAND USE ENCOURAGE MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND EAST BOY SCOUT ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE WIDENED AND SIDEWALK INSTALLED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE IN THE PLANS COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANKS AGAIN, MAYOR.
I KNOW YOU HAVE TO SAY THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE SURROUNDING ZONES; RIGHT? BUT R-6 IS RELATIVELY NEW ZONING. BASICALLY ALL OF OUR REQUEST THIS MONTH ARE TO R-6. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM.
AND YOU TELL US THAT EVERY TIME.
BUT ISN'T THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUALLY BE THE THING UNTIL R-6 IS USED MORE AROUND; CORRECT?
>> THE PHRASE IT'S NOT THAT IT'S CONSISTENT SURROUNDING WITH DEVELOPMENTS. YOU ACTUALLY HEAR ONE WHERE WE SEE IT'S NOT CONSISTENT. WE LOOK AT WHEN PROPOSED
[00:15:03]
ZONE IS BROUGHT IN; IS IT CONSISTENT IN GENERAL WITH THE AREA AROUND IT? A LOT O OUR AREAS IN THE CITY WITHIN A STONE'S THROW HAVE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT ZONES. WE LOOK AT THAT.AND I WILL SAY THIS ONE WAS HEAVILY DEBATED BY THE STAFFING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> THANKS AGAIN. COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> YES, THANK YOU.
I HAD A QUESTION. WE'RE IN-FILLING THIS ROADED AND PUTTING MORE CARTONS ROAD.
H YOU LOOKING TO MAYBE MAKE A CONNECTION OUT OFF TO THE OTHER ON THE BACKSIDE OVER TO MANNING DRIVE OR BECKETT DRIVE? IS THAT -- OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO THINK IT'S ONE WAY IN AND OUT AND LEAVE IT THAT
WAY? >> WHEN THAT LARGER R-4 # DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH IS COMPLETED, MANNING OR WHATEVER CROSSROAD IS OUT THERE WILL CONNECT TO EAST
BOY SCOUT ROAD. >> THAT'S THE PLAN.
>> IT'S NOT BUILT OUT ABOUT HALFWAY RIGHT NOW.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> MY ONLY THING WITH THAT ONE IS THE PARK BEING USED AS TURN AROUND. IS THAT WHAT IS USED AS TURN AROUND. OR WILL THERE BE ROADS THAT WILL BE A TURN AROUND. ON THE LAST ONE WE TALKED ABILITY WE TALKED ABOUT THE TURN AROUND BEING A CONCERN.
BUT ON THIS ONE WE'RE NOT SEEING THAT IT IS A CONCERN.
IS THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE WIDENING? OR BECAUSE THE PARKS DOWN THERE AND THEY CAN TURN
AROUND THERE? >> A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.
THIS PARCEL MID BLOCK WHERE THAT OTHER PARCEL AT PLUM WAS AT THE END OF THE PAVEMENT.
AT THE END OF THE PAVEMENT WHERE YOU NEED THE TURN AROUND. OUT HERE I BELIEVE EMERGENCY SERVICES CAN USE THE DRIVE WAY OR GO TO PARK AND TURN AROUND. IT WASN'T REQUESTED AS PART OF THESE HOMES. BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT IF
THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
MR. TYNDALL, I KNOW THE OTHER SPEAKER SAID THERE'S MANY R-6'S BEING REQUEST AS SUCH AS TIME AS THESE.
DO THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE AMENITIES SUCH AS THEY CAN'T HAVE SWIMMING POOLS AND PLAY HOUSES? IT'S MORE LIKE JUST STACKS OF HOUSES VERY SMALL.
ARE THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE -- HOW ARE THEY BEING KNOWN ABOUT R-6. ARE YOU TELLING THEM ABOUT IT WHEN THEY COME IN. A LOT OF THEM CALL ME AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT R-6.
HOW -- >> DO YOU MEAN THE DEVELOPERS OR THE HOME BUYERS.
. >> THE ONE THAT APPLIED FOR TAP APPLICATION. I'M SURE THEY ARE AWARE.
IF THINK STAYED YOU COULD GET, 3, 4, 5.
WITH R-6 YOU COULD GET 8, 9 OR 10 LOTS OUT OF IT.
>> MOSTLY FOR PROFITABLE >> THEY ARE SMALLER HOMES SO MORE AFFORDABLE. LESS LAND, WHICH SOME PEOPLE WANT LESS LAND. SOME PEOPLE WANT MORE.
IT'S TRYING TO MEET THE AFFORDABLE ISSUE WE HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHERE R-6 IS BEING WIDELY USED. IT'S BEEN AROUND 6 OR 7 OR 8 YEARS. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPABILITY AND HOUSING CRUNCH THAT US AND LOT OF
MIDDLE TENNESSEE R-6, R-5. >> DOES THE RESIDENT IN THAT AREA, ARE THEY AWARE THEY WILL NOT LONGER BE ABLE TO HAVE AMENITIES OR ACCESSORIES TO ALLOW THEIR CHILDREN TO PLAY; BECAUSE IT SAYS I'M LOOKING AT THE BOOK HERE. THERE'S NO PLAYGROUNDS.
NO CHURCHES CAN BE IN THE AREA.
NO PLAY HOUSES. I'M REITERATING THAT.
I DON'T THINK SOME OF THE BUILDERS ARE AWARE -- THE BUILDERS MAY KNOW. BUT THE CITIZENS MAY NOT KNOW. IT PUTS A HINDRANCE IN BUILDING A VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
AND SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> I THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR COUNCIL, IN R-6 UNDER THE USE CHARGE IF YOU GO DOWN TO OTHER USES SECTION, R-6 DOES NOT ALLOW A POOL, A PLAY HOUSE, YOU COULD PROBABLY HAVE A SWING SET OR A TREE HOUSE OR LARGER PLAY HOUSE ON YOUR PROPERTY.
OR IT CAN'T BE A CHURCH EITHER.
THE REASON IS THEY ARE SUCH NARROW LOTS.
YOU NEED A SHOE HORN TO GET A POOL IN.
WHEN THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE THOUGHT WAS TO MAKE POOLS NOT PART OF IT. WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME POTENTIAL FIXES. I DON'T KNOW IF R-6 WOULD HAVE THOSE OPTIONS. WE MAY PUT FIVE PLAY HOUSES IN. I'M NOT SURE THE RESIDENTS WE NEVER HAD SOMEONE COME AND SAY I HAVE THIS LOT.
[00:20:01]
WE CAN'T PUT A PULL ON IT. NO ONE HAS COME TO US CODE DEPARTMENT TRYING TO GET THOSE PERMITS AND THEN DENIED. I THINK THEY REALIZE WHEN THEY BUY SUCH A SMALL LOT IT'S DIFFICULT TOACCOMMODATE THOSE. >> HOW MANY BEDROOMS WILL BE
IN THESE HOMES? >> TWO OR THREE.
>> THAT MIGHT BE A MOTHER WITH THREE OR FOUR KIDS AND THEY WON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO PLAY IN THE YARD.
AS YOU SAID IT'S A SMALL LOTS.
AND NO SPECULATION HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S I WILL TRYING TO BECOME A COMMUNITY OR A STAT HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW.
THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THIS IS JUST A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE POOL, OR A PLAY HOUSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING PERMANENTLY STRUCTURED ON THERE. NOT THE PLAY HOUSE YOU GET
AT LOWE'S; RIGHT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE THAT TO BUILDING CODES DEPARTMENT.
SWING SET >> THE LITTLE POOLS.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND
POOL. >> AND THE PLAY HOUSES I COULD SEE. THERE'S SOME PLAY HOUSES THAT ARE PERMANENT STRUCTURES IN YOUR BACKYARD.
THEN THERE'S THE PLAY HOUSES THAT COME ON THE SWING SEAT.
I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PLAY HOUSES POOLS AND THINGS THROUGH THAT.
SOME PEOPLE WILL THINK THEIR KIDS CAN HAVE A LITTLE WAY
POOL. >> I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. I DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE
CLOUDY FOR ANYONE. >> CODES DEPARTMENT WOULD BE BEST TO ASK HOW THEY INTERPRET THAT.
>> I WILL ASK THEM. >> COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU MAYOR.
TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK WHAT THE OTHER PEOPLE SAY LET MY GIVE YOU AN EXAM ESPECIALLY. PROBABLY TWO HOUSES UP THE STREET FROM ME. HAD A CONSTITUENT CALL ME AND SAY MISS SMITH CAN YOU SEE WHY THEY BUILT THIS IT'S LIKE A RAMP OR SKATEBOARD. SMALL AREA.
THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE IT. I NOTICE IT'S BEEN TAKEN DOWN. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD THEM TAKE IT DOWN RAMP FOR THE SKATEBOARD.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL LOTS.
SMALL SWIMMING POOL OUT THERE.
YOU MAY BE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S YARD.
I'M GOING TO LEE IT -- LEAVE IT THERE.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT SWIMMING POOLS IN THEIR BACKYARD. WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR WE KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE WANT PLAYGROUNDS BUILT IN THEIR YARDS. WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR ON THAT.
WE HAVE TO CHECK WITH BUILDING CODES TO MAKE SURE IF IT POSSIBLE. BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LIST THAT HERE UNDER THE R-6 PLAN.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS
ORDINANCE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK THIS UP MYSELF. ISN'T THERE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ROOFTOPS IN R-6 BEFORE THEY HAVE TO LEAVE GREEN
>> ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION?
>> THANK YOU MR. TYNDALL. WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 6,
ORDINANCE 101. >> THIS CASE NUMBER Z-14-2022. APPLICATION OF LIGON HOME BUILDER. 0.29 ACRE.
ZONED R-3 # REQUESTING TO GO TO R-6 IT'S NOT EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION. THESE PARCELS FROM THE WEST FRONTAGE OFFORD AND CARPENTER STREET.
THIS IS COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 6.
THIS IS THREE PARCEL WITH SMALL STRUCTURE ON SILENT AND SINKHOLE IN THE APPLICANT STATEMENT TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. HERE'S THE SITE IN QUESTION.
ON FORD STREET LOOKING BACK TOWARD AUSTIN PEEK.
LOOKING DOWN THE STREET. AND LOOKING BACK TOWARD THE PROMPT ON FORD BACK IT WOULD BE TO YOUR RIGHT.
[00:25:02]
THE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS.STREET DEPARTMENT SAME ON SITE.
THERE'S SIDEWALK REQUIRED FOR THE R-6 REQUIRE AND NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATE PUT THT A FOUR LOTS.
THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST CONSIST WANT THE LAND-USE PLAN.
PROPOSED R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN STATES ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
AND AT ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE. SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED PER THE R-6 AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION
REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE. >> I WILL MAKE ONE COMMENT.
CALVIN LIGON. I KNOW HIM WELL.
HE WASN'T AWARE OF THE DIFFERENT LOT SIZES -- THE ZONES. HE WANTED TO MEET WITH ME.
I'M JUST WONDERING HOW DID HE JUST GET STUCK WITH R-6.
IT'S OUT OF CHARACTER WITHIN THIS R-3 ZONE.
SO IT CHANGED JUST THAT QUICK.
I'M CURIOUS, NOT TRYING TO BE ARGUMENT.
JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. FOR CLARITY.
I'VE TALKED TO HIM AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU GET TO R-6 BASED ON LEAVING R-3 WHEN YOU CAN BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THAT'S WHAT IT RATED FOR.
THANK YOU. >> I DID NOT HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH MR. LIGON PRIOR TO HIS APPLYING.
UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATION AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE SINKHOLE DOES TO THESE PROPERTIES, THERE'S THREE, R-3 PROPERTY. THEY COULD BUILD THREE HOUSES. ALLOWS THEM TO BUILD FOUR OR AVOID BUILDING ON OR NEAR THE SINKHOLE IF THAT IS THE
>> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> SO YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY. BECAUSE IT'S HISTORICALLY GRANDFATHERED; RIGHT? HE CAN COME IN AND TAKE THREE LOTS AND BUILD SEPARATE HOURS.
IF REREZONE -- REZONE IT. HE CAN DO THREE DIFFERENT
HOMES. >> I WILL PRESENT A STUDY WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH ZONING. I WILL GO INTO THAT MORE IN DEPTH. IT'S HOW R-3 AND R-4 WERE TREATED AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE ZONING CODE.
THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED AS SINCE IF YOU ARE UNDER SIZE FOR CURRENT R-3 LOT WHICH A LOT OF THESE LOTS ARE, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IF LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
IF YOU ARE ABOVE 10,000 TO 12,000.
YOU CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX.
ABOVE 12,000 SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX OR A TRI-PLEX.
>> I CAN'T DO THE QUICK MATH IN MY HEAD.
ALL WOULD ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RIGHT NOW.
BUT IF HE MOVES THE LOT LINES AT ALL OR CHANGES THEM AT ALL. YOU'RE KICKED INTO HAVING
MEET CURRENT CONDITIONS. >> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHEREABOUTS IN THIS ZONING THAT THE
SINKHOLE IS AT? >> THE AERIAL PHOTO HAS QUITE A BIT OF TREE COVER ON IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE IF THERE'S THREE LOTS.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SMACK DAB IN THE MID GOLF MIDDLE LOT.
LIKELY MAKING THE MIDDLE LOT UNDEVELOPABLE.
>> CUMULATIVE ACREAGE. THEN YOU COULD PUT TWO HOUSES ABOVE AND BELOW. AND THEN AVOID THE SINKHOLE.
>> IF YOU ZOOM IN CLOSE ON THE ZOOM-IN YOU CAN SEE THAT. I THINK IT WAS REALLY SHOWN
WELL IN THE PICTURE. >> RIGHT NEXT WHERE THAT SHED IS RIGHT THERE TO THE RIGHT.
THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE? SEEING NONE WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM 7.
ORDINANCE 102. >>> THIS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z-15. 2022 APPLICATION OF SYD AND
[00:30:06]
BERRY HEDRICK. 7.75 ACRE FROM R-1 REQUESTING TO GO TO R-6. AND SIT NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION. THE PROPERTY FRONTS THE SOUTH FRONTAGE OF LAFAYETTE ROAD SOUTHWEST OF THE LAFAYETTE ROAD AND MONARCH LANE INTERSECTION.CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 2, LARGE -- IT'S FAIRLY LARGE TRACK WITH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON SITE.
THE APPLICANT STATEMENT THIS PROPERTY IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF AHOLD OUT PROPERTY. IN AN EFFORT TO ENGENDER SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THE R-6 BEST FITS MY INTENTION TO DEVELOP INTO BUILDING LOTS. AND WHAT THAT APPLICANT MEANS BY HOLD OUT PROPERTY AS THIS AREA WAS DEVELOPED OVER TIME. IT WAS DONE IN PIECEMEAL OF FORMER FARMS. THIS WAS LIKELY A FORMER HOMESTEAD OF THE FARM. AND THEY KEPT THAT UNTIL EITHER PASSING AWARD OR PASSING ON TO CHILDREN OR SUCH ON. AND AT THIS POINT EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND SIT DEVELOPED. YOU HAVE SOME C-2 AND R-4 #.
YOU HAVE TINY CORNER OF R-6 UP THERE.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF CHOICES WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF IT. R-1 AND R-2 DON'T MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. YOU COULD GO TO R-4 LIKE YOU HAVE UP WITH SOME OTHER SIMILARLY SIZED MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND REMEMBER R-6 AND R-4 ARE SIMILAR IN THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE PER ACRE WHEREAS R-6 ALLOWS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP AND UPWARD MOBILITY.
PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IN THIS PICTURE CURRENTLY DOES HAVE A CURB CUT AT THE INTERSECTION, BY THE STREET DEPARTMENT SAID THEY SHOULD HONOR AS THEY DEVELOP IT.
LOOKING BACK UP TOWARD THE PROPERTY THERE ON THE RIGHT, AND THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET.
IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE SIMILAR HOUSES IN THE AREA.
STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED PER THE R-6 DEVELOPMENT AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT CONSIDER A CONNECTION TO PAULA DRIVE AFTER CONSIDERATION WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT DIVISION. WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT AT THE SUBDIVISION FACE. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT IT AT 60 UNITS. THE APPLICANT DIDN'T GIVEN A
ESTIMATE AT THIS TIME. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSIST WANT THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSE R-6 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING PATTERN. THE ADOPTED LAND USE STATES THAT LAND USE PLAN STATES IT'S ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN DESIRABLE MIX OF HOUSING TYPES AND AT ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SILENT INCLUDING SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >> ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION
REGARDING ORDINANCE 102? >> WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 8.
ORDINANCE 103. >> MR. TYNDALL.
THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION Z-17, 2022.
APPLICATION OF HUNTER WINN. .94 ACRE OF RM-1.
AND JUST REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY.
WE DON'T SEE THAT OFTEN. THAT'S A MOBILE HOME-ONLY LOT. SO THINK R-1 BUT FOR MOBILE HOMES ONLY. THEY REQUEST TO GO FROM RM-1 TO R-6. THE PROMPT FRONTS BIGLEN ROAD. THE INTERSECTION AND CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 3. IT'S A FORMER MOBILE HOME SILENT WITH A MILD SLOPE AND COUPLE OF MATURE TREES.
AND THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT TO THE NORTHWEST.
HERE'S THE ZONING MAP. EVERYTHING IN DARK RED IS RM-1. IT WAS A VERY POPULAR ZONE IN THE 60S AND 70S WHEN FIRST PUT OUT THERE.
ALLOT ALL YOU TO BE A MOBILE HOME ON THERE.
A LOT OF THIS IS TRANSITION TO A-4.
THE BOTTOM CENTER THERE. A LOT OF RENTAL ACTIVITY IN THIS AREA OF THE CITY. AS THE MOBILE HOME INDUSTRY HERE IN OUR GROWING CITY IS NOT AS VIBRANT AS IT ONCE WAS AND LENDING PRACTICES WITH THE VA ACTUALLY DON'T ALLOW MOBILE HOMES ANY MORE TO BE PURCHASED WITH THE VA LIKE THEY USED TO. THAT'S WHY THIS WAS POPULAR IN THE DAY. BUT A LOT OF THE MOBILE HOMES THEY DRIVE-THRU THE AREA ARE AGEING OUT.
[00:35:01]
HERE'S THE PICTURE OF THE CORNER.YOU HAVE DUPLEXES AND TRY TRIPLEXES IN THE AREA.
HERE'S THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT.
THERE WAS A MOBILE HOME. IT'S BEEN REMOVED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THAT'S LOOKING FURTHER UP BIGLEN ROAD TOWARD THE MOBILE HOMES THAT ARE STILL THERE. THE ONLY COMMENT OR CONCERN SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED; FOR THE R-6 HISTORICAL ESTIMATE WOULD PUT AT 9 UNITS. AFTER A LOT OF DEANTICIPATE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL.
THE PROPOSALED ZONE REQUEST APPEARED TO BE INCONSISTENT.
R-6 IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROPERTY MAY WARRANT CONSIDERATION OF A ZONE CHANGE, HOWEVER IT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE AS AN R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
KWAUD INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE INCLUDING SIDEWALKS. I'LL ALSO NOTE IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF OUR SIX TALKS ABOUT BEING IN SUPPORT OF USES. OTHER SIDEWALK.
OTHERS SERVICES, BUS ROUTES, ESPECIALLY AND NONE OF THAT EXIST WITHIN FIVE OR TEN MINUTE WALK OF THIS AREA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL ON
THIS. >> THANK YOU MR. TYNDALL.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> HI. IST -- I WAS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS AREA.
IT WAS A 5-4 VOTE. IT WAS VERY CLOSE.
I DROVE IT THIS MORNING. JUST TO SEE BECAUSE I WAS -- YOU KNOW, I'M I DON'T LIKE -- WHEN YOU SAY THEY DISAPPROVE. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S USUALLY A REASON. I'M PERSONALLY STILL WONDERING. I DROVE IT.
AND THE PROMPT IS ON THE EDGE.
IT'S LIKE RIGHT NEXT TO THE DUPLEX.
IT'S NOT LIKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AREA AND ON THE EDGES OF THE AREA WE ARE -- THERE WERE NEW BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION AS I DROVE THROUGH THE AREA.
WE ARE STARTING TO PUT R-4 THERE.
I GUESS AND I -- ARE WE -- I TALKED TO MR. JOHN HOWARD TODAY AS WELL. AND HE INDICATED THAT WE WERE NOT READY TO REDEVELOP THE AREA.
I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT R-6.
BUT R-6 IF I'M A VA PERSON, R-6 AND I CAN'T DO THE MOBILE HOME. KY DO THE R-6 IN A LOWER INCOME AREA. AND I GUESS -- WHAT IS YOUR RIGHT NOW AS WE STAND HERE FIVE OR TEN YEARS.
WHY -- I HEAR WHAT YOU SAID. I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD
I WILL TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF THAT.
>> THAT'S OKAY. FIRST OF ALL THIS IS PROBABLY THE FURTHER R-6 FROM THE CORE THAT WE'VE EVER SEEN. A LOT OF IT STARTED DOWNTOWN. CROSSLAND AVENUE FOR A WHILE THEN NEW PROVIDENCE. THIS IS FIRST SMALL SITE OUTSIDE OF MAYBE WHAT WOULD CONSIDER THE ASHANIZED AREA.
DOESN'T SHOW UP WELL ON THE MAP.
BUT THE COUNTY IS TO THE WEST OF THIS.
>> I SAW THAT WHEN I DROVE OUT THERE.
>> I KNOW YOU WERE THERE THIS MORNING.
A LOT OF YOU WERE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS IS AN AREA WE DON'T HAVE PLANNED OUT WEST WELL.
IT'S TRANSITED ON ITS OWN. I'M NOT SURE STACKING MULTIFAMILY IN HILLS THE RIGHT APPROPRIATE THING IN DENSITY. GOING OFF OUR CURRENT PLAN, YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE A CASE EITHER WAY.
BUT AFTER LOOKING AT ALL THE DIFFERENT NUANCES OF WHAT R-6 IS THE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDED ON DISAPPROVAL. IT MAY COME WITH A NEW LAND-USE PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT HAS A DIFFERENT VISION FOR THIS AREA.
BUT RIGHT NOW THE LACK OF VISION REALLY CLOUDS WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY.
>> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I HAVE TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
YOU SAID THE LACK OF PLAN. THE LACK OF THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT --
>> THE LAND-USE PLAN FROM 1999 DOESN'T ADDRESS THIS CORNER OF THE CITY VERY WELL.
ABOUT WHAT TO DO LONG-TERM. THAT'S 22 OR 23 YEARS OLD.
>> HAVING STARTED TO PLAN ON AGING OUT OF THE MOBILE HOME INDUSTRY AND BACK THEN YOU COULD GET A MOBILE HOME WITH VA. BUT NOT ANYMORE.
>> WITH THE R-6 YOU SAY A BUS STOP WITHIN FIVE TO
[00:40:04]
TEN-MINUTE WALK. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT EACH DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO DO.THE FIRST TEST IS THIS IN-FILL OR NOT.
WOULD DOWNING MAKE IT'S CASE IN-FY.
SECOND THING YOU LOOK AT IS SUPPOSED TO AROUND PEDESTRIAN SUPPORTED USES. SHOPPING, RETAIL, DINING, OR OTHER SIDEWALKS AND MASS TRANSIT TO GET YOU TO THOSE PLACES. THIS HAS NONE OF THEM.
PREVIOUS COUPLE OF R-6 WERE WITHIN A SHORT WALK TO ONE OF THOSE SERVICES. THIS ONE HAS NONE.
THAT'S A LARGE PORTION OF WHAT LED STAFF TO SAY IT'S NOT THE RIGHT PLACE YET FOR THAT.
>> IT'S OKAY FOR THE APARTMENTS?
>> THAT'S A GREAT POINT. I'M GOING WHAT THE ZONING
CODE SAYS. >> IF THIS WERE DISAPPROVED BY US, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER FOR R-4. IF IT IS DISAPPROVED.
THEY COULDN'T COME BACK FOR A YEAR.
>> COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> I'M JUST HAVE A QUESTION. I KNOW YOU SAID THERE WAS NO PLAN FOR THIS AREA. ARE WE GOING TO START DOING PLANS WITH THE AREA AND REZONING TO R-6.
OR JUST THIS PARTICULAR AREA BECAUSE OF -- YOU SAID 99.
>> I WILL CLARIFY THAT. THE 99 LAND-USE PLAN AADOPTED BROKE UP THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND CITY INTO 17 AREAS OF WHICH THIS IS IN THE LAFAYETTE AREA.
AND THAT DEPICTION OF THAT AREA IN THE PLAN THIS IS KIND OF GONE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT 23 YEARS AGO. AND WHAT THEY ADOPTED.
DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT REDEVELOPMENT.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AS THE MOBILE HOMES MOVE OUT.
SHOULD WE GO TO JUST SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
SHOULD WE BE INCREASING DENSITY.
I THINK R-4 HAS CREPT IN OVERTIME AS AN OPPORTUNITY.
AND MAYBE NOT WHAT THE PLAN INDICATES.
THE PLAN IS WEAK IN THIS AREA.
THE PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND WHERE WE SHOULD BE GOING. ESPECIALLY FOR THIS NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CITY.
>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. I'M GOOD, THANKS.
>> COUNCILPERSON MARQUEE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU. OUT OF CURIOSITY MR. TYNDALL. SINCE YOU EXPLAINED WHAT IF R-6 DEFINITION AS WHY IT WAS CONSIDERED DISAPPROVAL FOR THIS CASE, DOES THE RPC WHEN A DEVELOPER PUT AN APPLICATION, DO YOU ADVISE THEM ON WHETHER WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING DOESN'T FIT OR? HOW YOU TELL US THAT THIS WOULD PROBABLY BETTER AS R-4.
DO YOU TALK TO DEVELOPERS ABOUT THAT BEFORE OFFICIALLY SUBMITTING. SOMETIMES IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS. SOMETIMES THEY TAKE ADVICE.
SOMETIMES THEY WON'T TAKE ADVICE.
I DON'T TAKE THIS APPLICATION.
I DON'T HAVE A CONVERSATION. SOMETIMES WE GET APPLICATION BY MAIL OR DROPPED OFF. SOMETIMES THEY WILL WANT TO HAVE TALKS BEFORE THEY APPLY.
MY GUESS WAS THIS ONE WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.
WE'RE NOW READY FOR ITEM 9 ORDINANCE 105.
MR. TYNDALL? >> WE HAD A WITHDRAWAL.
APPLICATION OF RICHARD TUCKER.
14.6 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED C-5 AND REQUESTING TO GO TO R-44 NOT AN EARNINGS TENNION OF R-#.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD SOUTH OF THE MARTIN LUTHER KING MEMORIAL DRIVE INTERSECTION.
THE PROPERTY ALSO FRONTS THE WEST FRONTAGE OF JONES ROAD.
THIS IS IN CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 10.
IT'S A GRASS LAND FIELD WITH ROLLING HILLS AND THE APPLICANT STATEMENT TO PROVIDE TRANSITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY AREA AND PROVIDE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE HAS SEVERAL ZONING AND SITE REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION CASE HISTORY.
BUT IT HAS BEEN C-5 SINCE 1976.
THIS THE LOOKING WITH YOUR BACK TO MEMORIAL DRIVE WHERE IT EXITS OUT ON TO MLK BOULEVARD.
THERE'S A LITTLE FURTHER BACK IN THE INTERSECTION.
IT'S NOT THE FRONTAGE ROAD. IT'S THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT.
>> HERE'S JONES ROAD LOOKING BACK AT THE PROPERTY ON YOUR
[00:45:02]
LEFT. LOOKING BACK TOWARD SHAW SPRINGS ROAD. HIGHWAY 76 IS JUST OVER THE BRIDGE THERE ON THE PROPERTY.AND THIS IS ALL JONES ROAD A LITTLE BIT FURTHER UP LOOKING AT WHERE THE PROPERTY TOUCHES THE OTHER HOMES THERE. LOOKING BACK TOWARD SHAW SPRINGS ROAD PROPERTY ON THE LEFT.
AND I'M GUESSING THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY FROM JONES ROAD. AND THIS IS A PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ACROSS WHERE THE ZONING LINE -- SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS TO THE REAR HERE.
CITY STREET DEPARTMENT MADE A COMMENT SAID MUST FOLLOW CITY ACCESS ORDINANCE. FROM JONES ROAD ONLY.
IMPROVEMENT TO JONES ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED.
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED AND APPROVED.
THERE WERE NO OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. HISTORICAL ESTIMATE WOULD BE 175 UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
IF STAFF REPORT WAS UPDATED I THINK THE DAY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DIDN'T MAKE IT ON THE IPAD PROPERLY. I WANT TO GIVE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING LISA IS IT ON THEIR IPADS PROPERLY?
DOES IT SAY TED? >> UNDER THE STAFF REPORT FOR Z-19. YOURS SAYS APPROVAL.
>> WOULD YOU MIND READING STAFF REPORT TO THAT ONE.
>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED COUNCILPERSON.
>> THANK YOU. >> STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, STATES THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R-4 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND PROPERTIES. IT ALSO PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THE C-5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
HIGHWAY. AND THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN STATE ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN DESI DESIRABLE MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPE.
A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT WAS SUBMITTED AND IMPROVEMENT TO JONES ROAD ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE MADE AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE OF THIS PROPERTY.
>> THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN YOU HAD YOUR LIGHT ON FIRST. DO YOU WISH TO PROCEED?
>> THANK YOU. >> I KNOW ONE THING THAT WAS STATED IN THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS THAT THE WOULD ESSENTIALLY GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC C-5 ESSENTIALLY GENERATES THE SAME AMOUNT AS R-4 # -- DEVELOPMENT WOULD ON
THIS PROPERTY; CORRECT? >> IF YOU TOOK THE TRAFFIC FOR THE WHOLE DAY. C-5 AND R-4 HAVE DIFFERENT PEEKS OF TRAFFIC. C-5 USUALLY HAS AN AFTERNOON AND EVENING BUT LESS MORNING TRAFFIC AS MORE TRAFFIC WITH DELIVERIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
THEY SAY IT'S REALLY ABOUT A 10% DIFFERENT.
SLIGHTLY LESS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE.
BUT IT'S THE DIFFERENT IN THE PEEKS THROUGHOUT THE DAY THAT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
>> THE QUESTION AS YOU KNOW THAT I ASKED IN THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS IF THIS WERE TO STAY AS IT IS AS C-5. YOU MENTIONED THE ENTIRE PARCEL, THE -- THERE WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 76 WHERE YOU COULD HAVE THE TRAFFIC ENTERING AND EXITING THROUGH THERE. VERSES ALL THE TRAFFIC JUST DUMPING ON TO JONES ROAD AND HAVING TO UTILIZE A VERY SMALL INTERSECTION AT -- FURTHER UP TO TURN LEFT TO BE ABLE TO GET ON THE 76; CORRECT?
>> ACCESS TO 76 IS CONTROLLED BY T-DOT AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT. THE STREET DEPARTMENT DID GET TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS. UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTION ACROSS FROM MEMORIAL WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT THIS AND SOMETHING ELSE COULD PROVIDE IN FRONT OF IT WITH THE C-5 IS REALLY NOT DESIRED.
[00:50:04]
BUT ALSO DOESN'T QUITE TRIP THE LIMIT FOR A SIGNAL.ALSO WITH THE CITY'S 2020-PLUS TRANSPORTATION PLAN, THIS WHOLE AREA IS BEING EXAMINED.
IT MAY GET A SIMPLE. I MAY NOT.
I MAY GO TO FARMER'S ROAD. I MAY NOT.
THAT'S WHY THEY SAID AT THIS POINT WITH THIS BEING AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IT HAS TO ACCESS JONES ROAD.
THAT CAME FROM THE STREET DEPARTMENT.
>> OF COURSE THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO 76 ON THIS.
>> IT'S ALL ONE PROPERTY. WE COULD WORK WITH THEM IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT. I THINK DEVELOPERS ARE OKAY GOING TO JONES. THEY'VE INDICATED THEY WILL DO WHAT EVERY IMPROVEMENT THE STREET DEPARTMENTS
WANTS. >> AND I DO BELIEVE ALSO IT WAS MENTIONED THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT TURN AND RIGHT TURN OUT. FROM THE REMAINING PARCEL THAT WOULD BE STAYING C-5. THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT BY THE ENGINEER. YOU COULD DESIGN A RIGHT-TURN IN AND RIGHT TURN OUT TO LEFT SOME TRAFFIC OUT THERE. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A LEFT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT JONES ROAD.
OR GO OUT 76 AND HOOK BACK AROUND.
>> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP YOU MENTIONED THAT THE STREET AND THAT'S ON THE FUTURE PLAN.
ARE WE LOOKING 10 YEARS? 15 YEARS DOWN THE LINE BEFORE WE -- BECAUSE I MEAN KNOW THAT CORNER.
IT'S A VERY -- THEN TO ADD TO IT.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT IT'S COMING OUT WITH NO LIGHT AT THAT EITHER. THAT'S --
>> I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT OR MAYOR WHERE THAT STANDS. IT'S IN THE PLAN, WHICH IS GOOD. I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT IS.
>> I CAN TELL YOU WHERE IT IS.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN ENGINEERING FIRM WORKING ON THE DESIGN OF MEMORIAL DRIVE EXTENSION TO INCLUDE THAT INTERSECTION. IF WE PUT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WHERE EVERYBODY WANTS IT WE WOULD HAVE ONE EVERY TEN FOOT. WE ARE LOOKING AT SIGNALIZING SOME OF THE INTERSECTIONS FOR EXAMPLE OLD FARMER'S ROAD. AND THEN ANDERSON DRIVE, THERE WERE MEMORIAL DRIVE EXTENSION COME OUT ON TO HIGHWAY 76 OR DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD.
YEAH. IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN.
IT'S ALL FLUID TOO. ZONING CHANGES AND THINGS ARE BEING DONE AS WE SPEAK. THEY NEED TO BE COORDINATED WHERE THE SIGNALS NEED TO BE TIMED RIGHT AND SERVE THE
AREA RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE?
>> SEEING NONE ARE WE READY FOR ITEM 10 ORDINANCE 106.
>> THE PLANNING CASE NUMBER Z-20.
THE APPLICATION OF ASCENSION PROPERTY.
.97 ACRE ZONED R-3 AND REQUESTING TO GO TO R-6.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS THE EAST FRONTAGE OF WEST TOMPKINS LANE AT WEST TOMPKINS LANE. CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER 6.
IT'S A VACANT GRASS LAND FIELD WITH SLIGHT SLOPE WITH FRONTAGE ALONG SUBSTANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE APPLICANT BETTER UTILIZE THE EXISTING PROPERTY INTO SIX LOTS INSTEAD OF TWO TRI PLEXES.
REZONED IN 2020. Z-20202020 AT THE TIME.
SUBDIVIDED LATER THAT YEAR INTO TWO TRIPLEX LOTS.
OO TURN AROUND ADEQUATE FOR FIRE TEE R DEPARTMENT WAS ACCOMMODATED ON THE SITE. THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TURN AROUND. WE WOULD LIKE AT THAT FOR R-6. THIS IS THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE. LOOKING BACK TOWARD THE PROPERTY. LOOKING BACK UP TOWARD I BELIEVE THAT'S PARADISE HILL ROAD.
SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF R-6.
FIRE DEPARTMENT SAID A TURN AROUND IS REQUIRED.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATE FIVE UNIT.
THEY INDICATE THEY CAN GET SIX UNITS.
THE REQUEST CONSIST WANT THE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R-6 NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND TURN AROUND
[00:55:02]
ACCEPTABLE PARCEL STREET DEPARTMENT AND CLARKSVILLE FIRE AND RESCUE IS REQUIRED AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE.SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE R OF 6.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU MR. TYNDALL. COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> MIR TYNDALL, THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT
SUBSTANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> JUST IT'S A NARROW ROAD.
THE STRELT -- STREET DEPARTMENT IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ROAD. THERE'S A TURN AROUND SO TRUCKS AND VEHICLES CAN TURN AROUND.
RIGHT NOW THEY ARE USING THE VACANT PROPERTY TO TURN
THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE WE'RE NOW READY FOR ITEM 11.
>> WE'RE DONE WITH THE ZONING.
WE'LL GO ON TO ANNEXATIONS NOW.
THIS WAS ANNEXATION REQUESTED BY TWO BROTHERS THE MILLER BROTHER, ROY AND DAVID S. MILLER.
I WILL GET TO MY PLAN OF SERVICE HERE.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE. THIS PROPERTY IS DOWN ON STATE ROUTE 12 BETWEEN SHELLEY DRIVE AND ACORN DRIVE. A LITTLE BIT BEFORE EXCEL ROAD OUT THERE. IT'S THE TOTAL PROPERTY IS 98.27 ACRE. BUT 91.91 ACRES ARE NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. THERE'S ALREADY ABOUT 7 TO 8 ACRE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THAT'S BECAUSE WHEN THE OLD CITY LIMITS WERE DRAWN THEY WENT A CERTAIN DISTANCE AND SAID THAT'S THE CITY LIMIT. AGAIN SINGLE PARCEL.
THIS WAS EASY ON IT IT. IT HAS NO STRUCTURES.
CBS ALREADY SERVICES STATE ROUTE 12.
CMEC HAS NO CUSTOMERS. THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING ZONE CHANGE. IT'S ALREADY R-1 IT'S AS EASY AS WE COULD GET WHICH WE NEEDED.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATE FOR R-1 ZONING WOULD BE 186 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. APPROXIMATELY 505 RESIDENTS AS YOU CAN SEE THERE. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENT OR CONCERNS FROM THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
THE R-1 ZONING IS STAYING. IF THEY REZONE THE PROPERTY THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS OF REZONING WITH THE CITY. I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ANEXTATION OR THE PLAN OF SERVICE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> COUNCILPERSON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP.
HOW WILL THAT CONTACT TO ASHLAND CITY ROAD?
>> SURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE LASER GETS THERE OR NOT. THERE'S A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT TOUCHES ASHLAND CITY ROAD.
ABOUT LIKE 7 ACRES. THE PROPERTY GOES DOWN AND
THEN TO THAT ROOT. >> IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT LITTLE CIRCLE IN THERE. THERE WILL BE A DONUT HOLE.
THERE WAS A PORTION OF THE COUNTY.
THIS PROPERTY WILL CUT IT OFF.
THOSE PROPERTIES GET THEIR ACCESS THROUGH THE CITY.
I ACTUALLY WENT AND VISITED EVERY ONE OF THOSE FOUR HOUSES ON FIVE PARCELS. IT'S TWO FAMILIES.
NONE OF THEM WERE INTERESTED IN ANNEXING.
THEY ALL HAPPY WITH THEIR COUNTY SERVICES.
I TRY TO GO TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND SEE IF THERE'S MULTIPLE PROPERTIES THAT WANT TO COME IN. I SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
THEY GET THEIR COUNTY SERVICES.
THEY ARE ADDRESSED TO COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
IT'S JUST THIS LITTLE ISLAND INSIDE OF THAT CORNER OF THE
CITY FOR A WHILE. >> THANK YOU MR. TYNDALL.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO MAKE LONELY ISLANDS LIKE
WE'RE PRETTY GOOD COMPARED A LOT OF TOWNS IN THE STATE.
>> THE WAY THAT PROPERTY WRAPS AROUND THEN TO THE EAST THERE. THAT CLOSED THE FIVE PROPERTIES IN THE MIDDLE THERE.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 92? ARE WE READY FOR ITEM 12, REST SLOOUS 54.
PROCEDURALLY, MAYOR, THERE'S ORDINANCE 92 ON MY COPY.
THAT SHOULD BE BEHIND 54 AND 55 WHEN WE VOTE.
>> THAT'S A PORTION AFTER YOU ANNEX.
>> WE WILL FIX IT. >> RESOLUTION 55?
>> 54 WHAT YOU JUST. 54 ANNEXATION.
55 THE PLAN OF SERVICE. THEY GO HAND AND GOLF WITH EACH OTHER. WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU ORDINANCE 92, WHICH IS ADDING THAT PROPERTY INTO
[01:00:03]
WARD 7 FORMERLY THROUGH THE REAPPORTIONMENT PROCESS.>> LET'S GO BACK. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING ORDINANCE -- RESOLUTION 55? WHICH IS PLAN OF SERVICE? SEEING NONE; WE ARE NOW DISCUSSING THE ANNEXATION TORE REAPPORTIONMENT IN ORDINANCE 92. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENT REGARDING ORDINANCE 92? SEEING NONE.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR YOUR REPORT ON THE RED RIVER STUDY. MR. TYNDALL.
>> ALL RIGHT. YOU SHOULD HAVE ON YOUR IPAD. 10 TO 12-PAGE DOCUMENTS PLUS PICTURES AND MAPS IN THERE. THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT ON RESOLUTION 4, 20-21-22.
AREA WIDE STUDY OF THE R-3 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE RED RIVER DISTRICT. THE MAP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS THE AREA THAT WAS STUDIED.
THAT'S ALSO ON PAGE 22 OF THE REPORT.
THIS IS AN AREA OF TOWN IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE.
IT'S IN THE RED RIVER DISTRICT.
YOU HAVE THE PEEKS TO THE LEFT.
LINCOLN HOMES TO THE WEST. YOU HAVE VULCAN PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND COLLEGE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
AS PART OF THE STUDY. I WANT TO CALL OUT THE RBC MET WITH BUILDING AND CODE DEPARTMENT AND REVIEWED THE FINAL DRAFT. THEY MET WITH COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES TWICE. AND THE RPC ALSO MET RESOLUTIONS SPONSOR TWICE. ONE OF THESE TIME WAS WITH COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES PRESENCE.
AND AGAIN THE FINAL REPORT IS IN YOUR PACKETS TODAY.
I REALLY WANT JUST TOUCH ON THE HIGH POINTS.
FIRST OF ALL, I WILL SAY THIS WAS ACTUALLY REWARDING PROCESS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REALLY DIG DOWN AND LEARN MORE ABOUT R-3 AS WE GO FORWARD.
IT WAS A GREAT TIME TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS ZONE.
WE KNOW THAT HISTORICAL R-3 AND R-4 IN OUR COMMUNITY DOES PRESENT ISSUES WITH THE WAY IT'S DEVELOPED.
R-3 LOTS CAN BE CONSIDERED WHAT WE CALL LOTS OF RECORD.
R-4 LOTS AS WELL. PRETTY MUCH SAY NON-R-4.
INSTEAD OF FLAT GRAND NOT GUILTIERING THEM AT THE TIME AND PRIOR TO THE PRIOR TO 2010 REWRITE IN R-3 # AND R-4 YOU COULD BUILD A DUPLEX OR TRY PLEX DEPENDING ON HOW MANY SQUARE FEET YOU HAD ON YOUR LEFT.
YOU HAD TO HAVE A 80-FOOT LOT.
YOU COULD HAVE MORE UNITS IF YOU HAD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
14,000. >> THE ZONING CODE IN THE USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES IN R-3 AND R-4 IF YOU MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES. AND FOR THIS CASE, AGAIN, LESS THAN 10,000 FEET SQUARE FEET YOU CAN HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, R-3 LOTS BETWEEN 11 AND 11999 CAN HAVE DUPLEX AND GREATER THAN 12,000 YOU CAN HAVE TRIPLEX.
AGAIN, MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR NEW R-3 ZONE.
IF YOU ZONE TO R-3 OR DIVIDING R-3 LOT OR PARCEL YOU HAVE TO MINIMUM 12,000 SQUARE FEET, 80-FOOT WIDE AND CAN ONLY BUILD ONE TRIPLEX.
SINCE 2010 THERE'S BEEN R-33 REZONED.
VERY LITTLE R-3 SUBDIVIDED. BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BUILD A TRIPLEX. THAT'S NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT USE SOMETIME MORE OF QUAD PLEX ARE WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE LOOKING FOR. I WILL POINT OUT THIS MAP HERE. THIS MAP IS ALSO IN THE STUDY. IN THE BACK THERE.
UNDER FIGURE 3. THE DARKEST LOTS ARE LOTS THAT CAN ONLY ACOCOMMODATE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
THE MEDIUM BLUE LOT ARE DUPLEXES OR SINGLE FAMILY AND THE LIGHTER BLUE ONES ARE ONES THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE A SINGLE FAMILY OF DUPLEX OR A TRIPLEX.
THE TOP ARROWS POINT TO MAP ON THE LEFT THERE.
AND THIS WAS A VERY EYE OPENING ANALYSIS WHEN WE RAN THIS. 315 TOTAL LOTS ARE IN THIS 85-ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND 196 CURRENTLY HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON IT. THAT'S 62% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 10 LOTS OR 33% HAVE OTHER USES. A CHURCH, THERE'S A CORNER STORE UP THERE AND SOME OTHER USES.
BUT 109 OR 35% ARE EXISTING VACANT LOTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE EXISTS ZONING IS KEEPING
[01:05:03]
DEVELOPMENT AWAY OR THERE'S OTHER FACTOR GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MAP ON THE RIGHT THERE SHOWS THE PERMIT ACTIVITY. WE WENT BACK AND PULLED THE PERMIT ACTIVITY FROM 2018 THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2021.21 TOTAL PERMITS PULLED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
TEN OF THEM FOR MINOR RENOVATION.
7 FOR DEMOLITIONS, TWO FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, ONE FOR A DUPLEX AND ONE FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SITE. YOU CAN SEE THAT BASED ON THE COLORED DOTS ON THE MAP ON THE RIGHT WHERE THOSE LOCATIONS ARE. THEY WERE KIND OF SCATTERED.
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
THE MAP ON THE LEFT WE ANALYZE THE VACANT LOTS.
WE CLICKED AROUND. THERE'S NOT A MAJORITY OF ANY OF THE PROPERTIES. NOT A HANDFUL OWNED BY A SINGLE PERSON. IT'S A LOT OF FAMILY AND OUT OF TOWN OWNERS WHO MAY HAVE OWNED IT FROM SOMEONE WHO PASSED AWAY. UNLIKE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD ONE OR SEVERAL PEOPLE MAY OWN THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS OF THOSE STREET. WE SEE THAT MORE.
MAYBE UP IN NEW PROVIDENCE MORE.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF VACANT LOTS SAT ON BY PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT KNOW THEY ARE OWNING A VACANT LOTS IN CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE. WE WENT THROUGH THE STUDY.
THERE'S A SERIES OF RECOMMENDATION THAT REALLY COUNCIL HAS A COUPLE OF WAYS GOING FORWARD.
WE WANTED TO EXAMINE EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.
I'M GLAD WE BROUGHT IN MR. NEW BURN AND HIS STAFF.
THAT WAS REAL HELPFUL TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO US.
THE FIRST OPTION AVAILABLE WOULD BE TO KEEP IT AS IT IS. WE NOTE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THERE REALLY IS NO ONE SIZE FITTEDS ALL ANSWER TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. RIGHT NOW 26% OF THE LOTS ARE NOT COMPLIANT WITH BEING SINGLE FAMILY.
74% ARE. ALL THE LOTS COULD BE SINGLE FAMILY BUT YOU'RE NOT GUARANTEED THAT UNDER THE R-3 ZONE. WE PULLED THE SMALLEST SINGLE FAMILY ZONE R-2A. NOT A POPULAR ONE.
YOU DON'T SEE TOO MUCH. 50-FOOT WIDE LOT.
6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. IF WE REZONED THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ALL 315 LOTS; ONLY 63% OF THE LOTS MEET THE MINIMUM REGULATIONS FOR R2A RESULTING IN 115 THAT NEED TO BE GRANDFATHERED OR 37%.
THAT'S HIGHER GRANDFATHERING THAN WE HAVE WITH THE R-3 ZONE. OPTION 3, THIS ONE WE ADDED JUST LATE YESTERDAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED A STUDY LOOKING AT SORT OF A FILLING IN THE GAP BETWEEN R-6 AND R-2A. UP WITH OF THE REASON YOU GET A TON OF R-6 # LOTS THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY WANTING TO BUILD TALL SKINNY LOTS. THEY WANT 35, 40, 42-FOOT WIDE LOTS. NO ZONE THAT GAPS BETWEEN R-2A AND R-6 WHICH LEAVES 25 FOOT TO 50-FOOT DIFFERENCE.
WE'RE TALKING AND FINDING A ZONE DOWN TO 40-FOOT WIDE THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE MORE GENTLE INFILL.
THAT SHOULD BE PROBABLY MORE URBAN UNFILL INSTEAD OF SUBURBAN INFILL. IF WE DO THAT, AND WE DROP FROM A 6,000 TO 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND 40 FEET INSTEAD OF 50 FEET. THAT KEEPS IT IN LINE WITH WHERE THE R-3 IS NOW. WHERE 77% OF THE LOTS WOULD BE COMPLIANT. THIS IS VIABLE OPTION THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE SINGLE FAMILY USES BUT STAFF IS CONCERNED THAT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE ANALYZED FOR THE HIGHER DENSITY OR LOWER DENSITY ON A STREET BY STREET BASIS. OPTION FOUR, IF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ZONED TO R-6.
AGAIN R-6 A SINGLE FAMILY ONLY ZONE.
IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED TODAY THAT POOLS AND PLAY HOUSES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN R-6 ZONE. YOU GO DOWN TO 25-FOOT LOT WIDTH AND 2500 SQUARE FEET. IF ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS REZONED 96% OF THESE LOTS MEET R-6 MINIMUM.
THERE'S 12 THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE R-6 AND THAT'S JUST
DUE TO ODD LOT SIZES. >> ONE IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTE WITH THE R-6 IN ADDITION TO THE 211 EXISTING
[01:10:02]
LOTS IN THE RED RIVER NEIGHBORHOOD.IN ADDITION 211 EXISTING LOTS WOULD BE CAPABLE OF SUBDIVIDING INTO TWO LOTS UNDER THE R-6 REQUIREMENT AND FURTHERMORE OF D 211, H 3 COULD BE DIVIDED INTO THREE NEW LOTS. THEREBY CREATING 254 ADDITIONAL LOTS. FROM 351 TO 561 UNITS.
IF ALL THE LOTS WERE SUBDIVIDED AND USED TO MAXIMUM POTENTIAL. IF R-3 CURRENTLY IS DEVELOPED BY PUTTING A TRIPLEX OR DUPLEX ON EVERY POSSIBLE LOT THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE ONE.
398 IS THE POSSIBLE DENSITY THERE.
AGAIN R-6 REQUIRES CONSTRUCTION AS PART OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT AREA.
STAFF OPINION THAT R-6 WOULD MEET THE NEEDS OF THE DIRECTIVE AND PROVIDING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING AND WOULD ONLY LEAVE 4% IN A GRANDFATHERED STATE.
THEN WE HAVE FINAL OPTION AGAIN THIS ONE HINGES ON MR. NEW BURN AND HIS DEPARTMENT THAT COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT. WE APPRECIATE HIM COMING OUT AND SHARE THING WITH US. WE FEEL BOTH HIS DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION A NEIGHBORHOOD AREA PLAN.
NOT JUST A STUDY. WE DID A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOOK OVER A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
BUT DOING A VERSION OF COME PREMENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS MOST APPROPRIATE.
AND MR. NEW BURN HAS THE GRANT MONEY TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HIRE SOMEONE WHO DOES NEIGHBORHOOD STUDIES FOR A LIVING.
TO WALK THAT ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH WHAT IS MOST APPROPRIATE. AS I SAID THERE'S NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL. THERE MAY NOT BE ZONES THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE WHAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS.
BUT AN AREA PLAN COULD PROPOSE FUTURE OVERLAY ZONING OR NEW ZONES THAT WOULD MEET THE NEEDS.
IT WOULD BE A BLOCK BY BLOCK LOOK.
NOT JUST BLANKETING THE AREA WITH ONE ZONE.
THERE ARE ALSO AREA THAT YOU WANT TO PRESERVE FOR SINGLE FAMILY IN, IN NEIGHBORHOOD. WHICH IS R-3 DOESN'T DO.
THE STAFF ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION IS RITE NOW TO LEE THE R-3 AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MR. NEW BURN'S OFFICE AND IMMEDIATELY BEGIN STUDYING AS SOON AS WE CAN HIRE CONSULTANT WHICH OLD COME BACK WITH MUCH MORE FINE-GRAINED APPROACH TO WHAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS AND DO THAT DEEPER DIVE THAT THE PLANNING STAFF JUST CAN'T DO RIGHT NOW WITH THE WORKLOAD AND OUR OTHER DUTIES THAT ARE GOING ON.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER STUFF TO UNPACK.
>> THANK YOU MR. TYNDALL. COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> BACK TO MY QUESTION THAT I PROBABLY ASKED TOO SOON. LOOKING AT R-6 IN THIS AREA, AND BASED ON THIS RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FIVE OR SIX; ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY OF THOSE CHANGES UNTIL YOU DO YOUR STUDY?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD OFF FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
AND DO THE STUDY AND THEN IMPLEMENT CORRECT ZONE OR ZONING. MAYBE A COUPLE OF ZONES.
MAYBE R-6 ON THIS ROAD. TO CAN BE DETERMINED BY THE STUDY. FIND OUT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANTED AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE AREA.
THIS WILL BE UNDER PRESSURE AS SOON AS LINCOLN HOMES STARTS TO REDEVELOP. AND AS SOON AS QUITE RIGHT NOW. AS THEY ANNOUNCE WHATEVER THEY ARE GOING TO DO, AS WELL AS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON COLLEGE STREET, IS REALLY GOING TO PUT PRESSURE ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THEY NEED TO BE READY. BLANKETING R-6 MAY INCREASE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT MOVE. R-2-A WOULD ACCOMPLISH IT RIGHT NOW. YOU ARE LEAVING A LOT OF LOTS TO BE GRANDFATHERED. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST KEEP IT AS IT IS. WE'RE NOT ZONING IT NOW.
DO IT PROPERLY AND THEN DO IT ONE TIME AND ZONE IT APPROPRIATELY WITH ALL PARTIES IN MIND.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN IS PROTECTING WHILE WE WAIT.
WHAT IS THE BEST ZONE TO PROTECT THIS AREA WHILE WE
DO THE STUDY? >> I THINK IT'S BEEN PROVEN THAT R-3 HAS DONE A PRETTY DECENT JOB.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERMIT ACTIVITY.
YOU HAD ONE MULTIFAMILY HOUSE A COUPLE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND THE REST -- MORE DEMOLITION THAN NEW CONSTRUCTION OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS IN THAT
[01:15:02]
NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A RUSH THERE. IF I SAW THE NUMBERS REALLY INFLATED, I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO PUMP THE BRAKES.BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT ONE MORE YEAR IS REALLY GOING TO DO. IF THAT'S THREE YEARS YOU MAY SEE SIX OR SEVEN MORE PERMITS IN THIS AREA.
I KNOW YOU HAVE THE ZONING CASE HERE.
YOU HAVE THE FOOT IN THE DOOR WITH R-6.
THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT PLANNED.
>> THAT POSES SOME ISSUES AS WELL.
>> WHEN WE DO THIS AREA AND WE HIRE THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, DO -- CAN ONLY ONE PERSON DO ONE AREA, ARE THERE A COUPLE OF OTHER AREAS WE COULD SIMULTANEOUSLY REVIEW? OR DO YOU THINK THE GRANT WOULD BE ALL WE CAN DO IS ONE AND THAT IS IT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS AVAILABLE.
ONCE YOU INCREASE THE SCOPE YOU INCREASE THE COST.
THAT'S HOW I CAN PUT THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO LEAN ON OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL TAKE THE AREA WIDE LOOK.
IT'S NOT GOING TO GO THIS FINE GRAINED.
I WILL BE MORE DOWNTOWN AS THE WHOLE.
ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE SOME SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DO NEED THE DEEPER DIVE.
>> NEW PROVIDENCE PROBABLY NEEDS ITS OWN ATTENTION.
ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATION WILL TAKE THE LEGACY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE MAYBE TIED DOWN BY SOME OF THIS R-3 AND R-4 FOR REDEVELOPING PROPERTY.
IT MAY NOT BE THE PROPER WAY FOR THEM TO REDEVELOP.
IS PART OF ONE OF THE EARLY ITEMS WE WOULD NEED TO
ADDRESS. >> LAST THING IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ZONING AND LIKE ARE WE ANTICIPATING LIKE NEW ZONES? I RED IT'S DIFFICULT TO CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONES. EASIER TO MAKE NEW ZONES TO PROTECT AREAS RATHER THAN TRY TO BRING ALL THOSE ZONES UNDER ONE BLANKET. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT FROM MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THIS AREA COULD BE WELL SERVED WITH TWO SOMETHINGS. CHANGING IT ON A BLOCK BY BLOCK. IT'S WELL GRITTED OUT FOR THAT. CORNERS, STREETS THERE.
CLOSER MAYBE MORE DENSE. COLLEGE STREET YOU MAY HAVE MORE SINGLE FAMILY. A STEP DOWN IF YOU WILL.
THAT ACCOMPANIED WITH MAYBE AN OVER-LA THAT DOES SOME OTHER ADDITIONAL PROTECTION THAT THE BIG ZONE DOES.
NONE OF OUR -- NONE OF THE EXISTING ZONE 100 FIT THE
>> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> SO LIKE YOU SAID THERE'S NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
ALL OF THESE MAY NOT BE R-3 # -- OR R-2A.
IF THERE WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY DONE AND SAY FOR EXAMPLE THIS BLOCK OVER HERE THEY SAY OKAY THIS BETTER SUITS R-3. THIS BETTER SUITS R-2A.
WHO PAYS FOR THAT. NOT THE OWNER; RIGHT?
>> THAT WOULD BE DONE AS AREA WIDE REZONING.
>> EVEN IF IT IS SHOPPED UP. WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY AN AREA.
WE WOULD SAY THIS ROAD TO THIS ROAD TO THIS ROAD.
CUT OUT THE AREA. PLANNING STAFF IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SPONSOR WOULD DECIDE.
IF THAT'S APPROACH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES SAY PIECE BY PIECE OR LOT BY LOT THIS IS MOST PROPERTY. THIS STREET, THIS LOT, THIS CORNER. WE WOULD BRING YOU BACK A ZONING MAP UNIQUE TO JUST THAT AREA.
AND YOU WOULD ADOPT LIKE THE ZONING CODE.
EVERYONE THERE WOULD BE NOTIFIED.
EVERYONE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.
MAKE SURE GOT OUT NEWSLETTERS.
WE HAVEN'T DONE AN AREA WIDE REZONING IN A LONG TIME.
TYPICALLY AREA WIDE REZONING ARE DONE TO FIX A GRANDFATHERING ISSUE OR SOMETHING AS DRASTICALLY CHANGED THAT YOU NEED TO INSTEAD OF LETTING RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU GET A ZONING CASE, IT'S DONE BECAUSE THE MARKET OR THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME INGE IT FROM WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS. ZONING IS SUPPOSED TO GET YOU TO YOUR FUTURE AND AGAIN PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHAT IF WE HAVE OWNERS THAT DON'T WANT A DIFFERENT
ZONING? >> YOU MAY HAVE TO OVERRIDE.
I WOULD HATE TO TAKE ONE OR TWO OR THREE PEOPLE OUT.
[01:20:01]
I WOULD RATHER DO FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.>> THIS THE R-6 BUT I HAVE A POOL IN MY BACKYARD.
>> THAT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
>> THE DUPLEX GETS TO STAY IN PERSON DUTY UNTIL IT CHANGES FROM NOT BEING A DUPLEX.
THAT'S HOW IT IS GRANDFATHERED IN.
>> COUNCILPERSON, BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHERE TO BEGIN.
I THINK THIS THE REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHEN WE DO SOMETHING.
I UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WAS ASKED OF YOU.
AND THE IDEA BEHIND THAT BUT AS YOU SAID, THIS IS REALLY EYE OPENING. THIS IS DOWNTOWN.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THE DONE TOWN.
IT'S LIKE.7 MILES FROM THE CITY CENTER.
IT'S RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STADIUM.
WE WANT SOMEWHERE TO GO EAT. THEY TELL US HOW THAT AREA.
NONE OF THEM COME DOWN TO FRANKLIN STREET OR ONE BLOCK THAT WE CURRENTLY CONSIDER DOWNTOWN.
THIS THE DOWNTOWN. I'M SUPER AGAINST THE IDEA OF BLOCK ZONING THIS. RIGHT NOW IT'S BLOCK ZONE R-3 ALLOWS FOR SCHOOLS, AND PLACES TO LIVE LIKE ASSISTEDLYING FACILITIES. MEDICAL -- I WAS JUST LOOKING. NOT MUCH COULD BE BUILT.
WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WE CAN GET THE FUNDING BECAUSE THIS IS A BLIGHTED AREA. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I DON'T LIKE TO DO THAT AREA.
THERE'S FUNDING TO DO STUDIES.
>> THAT'S THE TERM THEY USE. >> WOULDN'T BE WITH INTENTION OF REMOVING BLIGHT.
IT'S A STUDY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> WHICH I LIKE. I REALLY LIKE THAT IDEA.
BECAUSE I THINK -- I FEEL LIKE IT'S A COMPROMISE.
THE REASON GETTING TO MY BIGGER POINT.
THE REASON I DON'T LIKE IDEA OF BLOCK ZONING THIS.
IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO HAVE A CORNER STORE TO GO TO. INSTEAD OF ALL BEING ONE AREA. THIS IS OUR DOWNTOWN AREA.
WE NEED A LITTLE BIT OF THIS, A LITTLE BIT OF THAT.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUSINESS HOME ABOVE BUSINESSES. STUFF LIKE THAT.
RIGHT NOW AGAIN WE THINK OF DOWNTOWN.
WE THINK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.
WE LOOK AT TWO BLOCKS. THAT'S WHAT WE THINK OF AS DOWNTOWN AREA. OUR DOWNTOWN AREA IS BIGGER THAN THAT. I THINK THIS IS PART OF IT.
>> TO THE SPEAKER -- TO MY COLLEAGUE WHO ASKED FOR THIS SPEAKING ABOUT VIBRANT COMMUNITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT THROUGH A BIG BLOCK ZONING THAT AS YOU SAID WE'RE SEEING PEOPLE COMING IN HERE AND ASKING US TO CHANGE THE ZONES ANYWAY.
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT R-3 LOOKS LIKE THE SAFEST THING TO GIVE PEOPLE TO NOT MESS WITH IT FOR RIGHT NOW.
AND I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS.
I HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT BLIGHTED AREAS.
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT I KIND OF RANT AND RAVE ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME. AND I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN. OUR DOWNTOWN AREA NEEDS DENSITY. IT NEEDS DENSITY.
SO WE CAN PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES, SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN UTILIZE WALKING OR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S ALL I GOT.
THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON MARQUEE.
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE IF THE THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES CAUGHT THIS.
YOU HAVE PRESENTED A CASE ZONING CASE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND RPC AND THE COMMISSION BOTH RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FROM R-3 TO R-6. YOU TELL US BASED ON THIS REPORT TO KEEP IT R-3. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHICH IS IT. >> HE'S TALKING ABOUT ALL 85
[01:25:08]
ACRES. IN AND OF ITSELF.>> BUT INDIVIDUALLY, THAT'S FINE PRETTY MUCH.
AGAIN THAT'S UP FOR VOTE NEXT WEEK.
APPLICANT ASKED FOR A VERY SPECIFIC NEED.
WHEREAS THE REQUEST TO STUDY IT WAS TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA. I WOULD NOT JUST TAKE THE WHOLE AREA AND BLANKET ONE SPECIFIC ZONE LIKE R-3 HAS BEEN OUT THERE. MAYBE AT ONE POINT R-3 WAS THE OPTION WHEN YOU HAD MORE OF FLEXIBILITY BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, TRIPLEX.
YOU HAVE THAT BUT YOU ARE MUCH MORE CRAMMED INTO DOING JUST A TRIPLEX THAN PREVIOUS.
>> IT JUST SEEMED CONFLICTING.
I WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>> WE TALK ABOUT ALL THIS AREA BEING ZONED TOGETHER.
THANKS. >> COUNCILPERSON HOLLEMAN,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP AND SEEING THE MARKET I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE. WITH THE VULCAN PLANT BEING REDEVELOPED AND ALL THE DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN AND ACROSS THE CITY. WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS AREA, IN PARTICULAR, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST LOOK AT IT AND JUST THINK WHATEVER WE DECIDE.
THE LONG-TERM EFFECT. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT LONG-TERM. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> CAN WE HAVE THESE SLIDES? FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. TYNDALL. WHEN YOU DO THIS STUDY.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER PART OF THIS C-5 OR C-2.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT AT ALL?
>> YOU COULD. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO MORE RESIDENTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE COMMUNITY MEETINGS. WE DID A STUDY BASED ON WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? HERE ARE YOUR OPTIONS.
WE GAVE A RECOMMENDATION. I HATE TO DO IT.
STUDIED IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
IT'S A MUCH MORE COMPLEX ISSUE THAN MAYBE SOME OTHER PARTS OF TOWN. AND NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE ATTENTION THAN WE CAN GIVE TO IT IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I THINK WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF SOME ADDITIONAL HELP THROUGH A CONSULTING FORM WE WOULD HAVE STAFFED HOURS TO DEDICATE TO THIS; I THINK YOU WILL START TO REALIZE MAYBE SOME OTHER OPTIONS DO POP UP C-2 COULD BE AN OPTION.
AS YOU GET TOWARD THE CAMPUS OR TOWARD COLLEGE STREET ESPECIALLY WHERE YOU COULD HAVE APARTMENT AND STORES MIXED TOGETHER AND MEET SOME MORE NEEDS IN THAT PART OF
TOWN. >> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> LAST QUESTION.
WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ONCE -- IF THERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY DONE JUST THAT'S DOWN IN THE WEEDS AND WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT WHAT THIS HOUSE SHOULD BE ZONED.
WE'RE LOOKING AT REVITALIZATION OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE SOME C-2. MAYBE THERE MAY BE SOME -- LIKE MISS BUTLER -- THE PREVIOUS, PREVIOUS COUNCILPERSON SAID. WE DID MEET WITH A LOT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS IN THAT AREA.
AND THAT WAS THEIR BIGGEST THING.
THERE'S NOTHING WALKABLE. THERE'S NO STORES.
THERE'S NOT EVEN A GROCERY STORE THEY CAN GO TO.
NOT EVEN A SMALL STOREFRONT. IF THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE LOOKING AT OR IS IT JUST BASICALLY WHAT
THIS SHOULD BE ZONED? >> I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT RECREATIONAL NEEDS. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
WHETHER THOSE ROADS ARE FAIRLY NARROW.
WE MAY BE ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OWN A FEW LOTS ALREADY.
MAYBE THEY CAN BECOME NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS.
THIS ACTUALLY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE PARK LAND.
IT WOULD BE ALL INCLUSIVE OF ALL THOSE TYPE OF ANGLES SAFETY AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT ANALYSES.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON BUTLER.
>> LAST BITE AT THE APPLE. IT'S TWO THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, SERIOUSLY, I LEGITIMATELY DROVE FROM MY HOUSE EXIT 4 DOWN, PICKED SOMEONE ON CAMPUS TOOK THEM BACK OUT TO SAM'S CLUB TO DO A SHOPPING TRIP AND DROVE THEM HOME. THIS AN ACTUAL NECESSARY NEED. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS WHY I LOVE THE IDEA.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT JUST WHERE YOUR HOUSES ARE.
IT'S NOT WHERE YOU LIVE. YOUR BEDROOM COMMUNITY.
IT'S THE SCHOOL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[01:30:01]
I THINK THAT WOULD BE COOL. WHEN WE SAY NEIGHBORHOOD.THAT'S WHAT I THINK. I JUST DON'T THINK OF MY SUBYIGS THAT I LIVE IN. THANK YOU.
FLUCH >> ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING THE STUDY?
>> SEEING NONE MR. TENDAL. BACK TO YOU.
>> JUST ONE CLOSING TOPIC. JUST TO PUT A NAME TO WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING ABOUT NO GROCERY STORE.
THAT'S A CALLED A FOOD DESERT.
FOOD DESERT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP ALL THREE STUDY PERIOD BY ALL THE GROUPS. IT'S RESONATING NOT JUST WITH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, WITH ELECTED OFFICIAL AND CITIZEN COMMITTEES. I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK ON NOT JUST FOR DOWNTOWN BUT PLENTY OF OTHER PARTS OF TOWN THAT HAVE LOST GROCERY STORES DON'T HAVE ACCESS. FOOD DESERT IS FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLES. YOU CAN GO TO CONVENIENT STORE AND GET A FROZE INMEAL OR LUNCHABLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO NOURISHING FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLE. A LOT OF WORK THIS MONTH.
I DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE.
AND THANK YOU WHO PARTICIPATED SO FAR AND WILL CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
PROCESS. >> HANG ON JUST A MINUTE.
MR. TYNDALL, COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH ME. AND DOING THIS ANALYSIS TO HELP FOR THIS SMALL COMMUNITY WE'RE TRYING TO REZONE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMERCIAL THAT WAS MENTIONED.
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
ONLY FROM A CERTAIN STREET FROM H STREET TO GREEN RIVER. I WANT TO THANK YOU AND I WANT TO THANK MR. NEW BURN AND THE OTHER STAFF THAT WORKED WITH ME. AND GETTING THINGS IN ORDER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
I SEE THE SIGN OVER HERE. IT IS UNCONVENTIONAL.
BUT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THIS.
WHILE THE CLERK IS READING THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE WILL TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK.
WE WILL COME BACK AND ASK IF ANYONE HAS ITEMS -- IS THAT
NEVER MIND. WE WILL TAKE BATHROOM BREAK UNTIL 6:13.
[2) CONSENT AGENDA ]
>> MADAM CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE CONSENT
AGENDA. >> ALL ITEMS IN THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND NONCONTROVERSIAL. BY THE COUNCIL MAY BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION. HOWEVER A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE REPORT. ORDINANCE 19-2021-22.
SECOND READING. POSTPONED 3-3-22.
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE RELATIVE TO ADOPTION OF AN AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE.
>>> ORDINANCE 85-2021-202. SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 OPERATING BIG FOR THE TRAVEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CBID
ORDINANCE 120-2020-21. >>> ORDINANCE 87-2021-22.
SECOND READING. AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF MARK HOLLEMAN FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF RINGGOLD ROAD AND ISHEE DRIVE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
>>> ORDINANCE 88-2021-22. SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF VAN WORMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF FOREST STREET AND CHURCH STREET FROM R-3, THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
>> ORDINANCE 89-2021-22. SECOND READING.
AMMING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE. APPLICATION OF CITY OF CLARKSVILLE. MAYOR JOE PITTS.
AGENT FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF CROSSLAND AVENUE AND RICHARDSON STREET FROM R-3, THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6
[01:35:03]
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.>> ORDINANCE 91-2021-2 # 2. SECOND READING.
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM HAYES LWOOD DEVELOPMENT A TENNESSEE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP TO THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEWER PUMP STATION.
>> RESOLUTION 57-2021-22 APPROVALING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ADULT ORIENTED BOARD COMMON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, FIRE BOARD OF APPEAL, HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE ROXY BOARD. ADOPTION OF MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, MARCH 3RD, MARCH 8TH AND MARCH 16TH.
LET'S POINT OUT ON ITEM ONE THAT WAS DEFERRED AS IT SAYS POSTPONED SO WE COULD HAVE CAN NOMINEES FOR BOARD OF APPEALS END RESOLUTION 57. THOSE SORT OF GO TOGETHER.
[3) FINANCE COMMITTEE]
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE WE'RE READY FOR THE COMMITTEE REPORTS. FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.>> THANK YOU ORDINANCE 93-2021-22 FIRST READING AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED 2015 FT.
CAMPBELL BOULEVARD AT PUBLIC AUCTION.
>> THIS WAS FORMALLY THE SITE OF THE NORTH CLARKSVILLE WATER GAS AND WATER DEPARTMENT OFFICE.
AND OF COURSE WE CLOSED THAT OFFICE AND OPENED A NEW
OFFICE. >> ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING THAT ORDINANCE? SEEING NONE.
PROCEED, PLEASE. >> ORDINANCE 94-2021-22.
FIRST READING DESIGNATING DEPOSIT TOIRS FOR THE CITY OF CHARACTER CLARKSVILLE FURTHER FORKING THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE TO ENTER INTO BANKING SERVICE CONTRACTS.
MAYOR WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THIS?
. >> THINK IT WOULD BE; IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP AND GIVE US THE BRIEF
>> WE HAVE REALLY QUICK SLIDE.
JUST SOME OF YOU ARE NEW. BANKING SERVICES WE ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO DO AN RFP FOR BANKING SERVICES.
EVERY FOUR YEARS. THEY PUT THIS NEW LAW OUT WHILE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONTRACT PERIOD.
THEY TOLD US, WELL, IF YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONTRACT YOU CAN WAIT FOR THE CONTRACT TO EXPIRE AND THEN RENEW. IF YOU DO REEVALUATION.
OF OUR SERVICES AND THAT INCLUDED GETTING QUOTES AND QUICK LITTLE NUMBERS FROM LOCAL BANKS TO SEE IF IT WOULD BE WORTH DOING RFP AGAIN.
SOME OF OUR CONTRACTS EXPIRED IN DECEMBER OF 2021.
WE PUT NEW RPF OUT. THAT'S COMING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. ANOTHER THING THAT'S REQUIRED BY LAW IS THAT ALL OF OUR FUNDS HAVE TO BE 105% COLLATERALIZED. THAT MEANS LIKE SINCE THEY'RE NO FDSE FOR OVER 250,000 THIS IS HOW IT IS COVERED. WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES.
WE GOT FROM U.S. BANK AND LEGEND'S BANK.
THIS IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE RANK THEM ON.
IN THE RFP, WE TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT EXPERIENCE SERVICE AND PRICING.
WE DO THIS FOR MY OFFICE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME BANK. BUT IT ALL COMES THROUGH YOU. WE HAD THIS CITY GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND TRANSIT COME WITH CITY GENERAL THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE BANKING SERVICES ON THEIR OWN. AND THEN WE HAVE GAS AND WATER AND CDE. FROM EACH OF THOSE THREE SEPARATE AREAS WE HAVE REVIEW COMMITTEES AND THESE SUMMARY OF THOSE REVIEWS. YOU CAN SEE THERE CLEARLY LEGEND BANK HAS COME OUT AHEAD.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING AND REQUESTING THAT YOU PROVIDE LEGENDS BANK AS OUR DEP DEPOSITORY FOR ALL THREE.
ONE LAST QUICK THING. THE FEES BETWEEN THE TWO.
WE PICK OUT PROBABLY ABOUT 15 TO 20 ITEMS. IT'S NOT EVERYTHING WE DO WITH THE BANK.
15 TO 20 ITEMS AND COMPARE THE PRICING.
AND BASED ON THE 15 TO 20 ITEMS THE ANNUAL FEE WITH LEGEND WOULD BE 23,940 FOR THE YEAR.
THIS IS ESTIMATED. AND THEN FOR U.S. BANK IT
[01:40:04]
WOULD BE OVER 25,000. WHERE THE BIG DIFFERENCE COMES IN. THIS WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH U.S. BANK RECENTLY, THE EARNINGS CREDIT HELPS OFF SET SOME OF YOUR COSTS.AT U.S. BANK THEY KEPT UPPING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE VERY REQUIRED TO KEEP IN BANK.
THEY PROPOSE 6 MILLION AS AVERAGE BALANCE IN ORDER TO EARN INTEREST TO OFF SET THE CREDITS.
LEGEND REQUEST 3.89 MILLION. IT'S JUST ABOUT HALF.
>> THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING 20 BASIS POINT FOR EARNING CREDIT AND IF WE DO THE SWEEP ACCOUNT THEY ARE PROPOSING FED FUNDS MINUS 50 WITH FLOOR OF 20 BASIS POINT EARNINGS ON THAT. THE INTEREST RATES ARE BETTER. THE OTHER REASON IRWILL GO BACK TO LOOK AT THE SERVICES AGAIN.
IF YOU NOTICE OUT OF THE FRYE POINTS THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET FOR SERVICE YOU WILL SEE U.S. BANK RANKED LOW. WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF ISSUE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A PRESENCE OF U.S. BANK ANYWHERE IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE SINCE JOYCE LAWRENCE RETIRED.
WHEN JOYCE RETIRED. STEVE CHAPEL LEFT AND OUR REPRESENTATIVE IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS.
WE NEED LOCAL PEOPLE TO HELP US AND WORK THROUGH THE BIG ISSUES. I'M WORKING WITH LEGENDS BANK. WE PLAN ON IMPLEMENTING SOME NEW EFFICIENCIES TO MAKE US DO THINGS BETTER AND QUICKER. AND SAVE US MORE MONEY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> COUNCILPERSON BUTLER DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESENTATION?
>> YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE WERE USING U.S. BANK THEN? AND DOES THIS IN ANY WAY EFFECT THEM BEING IN THE BOTTOM OF OUR CITY HALL?
>> NO, MA'AM. THEY HAVE A SEPARATE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH US. NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.
WE USED U.S. BANK BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONLY PERSON THAT BID ON THIS FIVE YEARS AGO.
THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.
BEING A FORMER BANKER, AND OF COURSE ALL TYPES OF BANK ARE NECESSARY FOR US TO HAVE.
THERE'S SOME DEFINITE ADVANTAGE TO US PARTNERING WITH LOCAL BANK TO ASSIST US.
WE DO HAVE IN AUDIENCE WITH US TONIGHT THE CEO OF LEGEND'S BANK MR. TOMMY BAIT WHOSE OFFICE IS LOCATED A COUPLE OF BLOCKS. KC HANDFUL THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND HER TEAM.
SHE WOULD HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO ASSIST HER RATHER THAN HAVING TO CALL CHICAGO.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE ORDINANCE 95-2021-22.
FIRST READING AMENDING THE OPERATING CAPITAL BUDGETS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 FOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ORDINANCE 130-2020-21 TO ADD ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR A TOTAL OF $7,512,500.
THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAD VOTED ON PREVIOUSLY ACCEPT NOW IT IS NO LONG INCLUDING THE 20 MILLION IN WILL FOR THE PARKING GARAGE. IT DOES STILL INCLUDE THE $5 MILLION FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE PARKING GARAGE AS WELL AS REPAIRS TO THE SMITH MANSION.
THE 2.3 MILLION FOR FROSTY MOURN AND OF COURSE THE 25,000 THAT WE NEED TO GIVE TO T-DOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES. >> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
ORDINANCE? >> PROCEED, PLEASE.
>> RESOLUTION 56-2021-22 AUTHORIZING A REVISED NEW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FT. CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY FOR TRANSPORT OF NATURAL GAS. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE DID APPROVE THIS. I DO APOLOGIZE.
I DIDN'T READ THAT. IN REGARD TO THIS RESOLUTION, OF COURSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE OFTEN VOTED ON AN AN ANNUAL BASIS.
WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH FT. CAMPBELL FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS.
THEY PURCHASE FROM TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE LIKE CLARKSVILLE GAS AND WATER AND PAY US TO TRANSPORT THE GAS THROUGH OUR MAINS AND DELIVER TO METER AT GATE 2
[01:45:01]
ON FORT CT. CAMPBELL. INVOLVE CLARIFICATION TO DEFINITIONS, CRITERIA AND DEADLINES FOR REPORTING FACTORS THAT REMAIN VARIABLE THROUGHOUT THE CONTRACT TERMS SUCH AS REPORTING CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT REMAIN BEYOND THE CONTROL OF EITHER PARTY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FINDING SET AMOUNT. DEFINES THE ACTUAL CURRENT NOMINATION PROCESS. DEFINES WHO GETS THE GAS DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. CLARIFIES IN THE FUNDS PENALTIES. UPDATES CONTACT INFORMATION.BOTH FT. CAMPBELL AND CLARK WATER AGREE TO PROPOSED
VEHICLES RIGS. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
REGARDING LESS SWLOOUGS 56? >> PROCEED PLEASE.
>> RESOLUTION 28-2021-22 AUTHORIZING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLARKILVILLE, TENNESSEE AND THE ROTARY CLUB OF CLARKSVILLE TO ACCEPT THE DONATION OF THE $1,380.70 TO PURCHASE AND ILL STAUN FLAGPOLE AND UKRAINIAN FLAG TO BE PLACED MCGREGOR PARK AVENUE OF FLAG.
THE ROTARY OR ANY OTHER GROUP THAT HAS CHOSEN TO WANT TO PUT A NAG POLE DOWN THERE.
WE MAKE THE PURCHASE AND THEY GIVE US THE FUND IN
ORDER TO DO SO. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
ALTHOUGH I LOVE THIS IDEA. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FLAG WHEN THE UKRAINE CRISIS OVER?
DO WE KEEP IT OVER? >> WHAT HAPPENS? I KNOW THAT WE ACTUAL MULTITUDE OF FLAGS SO WE CHANGE FLAGS OUT ON OCCASIONAL BASIS BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE FLAGS THAN FLAGPOLES.
>> THIS ONE IN THIS CASE GOING TO BE FOR THE UKRAINE FLAG TO BE PLACED. BUT I DO BELIEVE LIKE I SAID IT'S A CASE WHERE IF SOMETHING WERE TO CHANGE THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT ANOTHER FLAG UP THERE.
WE HAVE MORE THAN WE DO FLAGPOLES.
>> CHAIR PHENMAN. >> WE ARE READY FOR GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE. COUNCILPERSON SMITH YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CHAIR. HE WOULD HAVE REPORT ON
[5) NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES]
THURSDAY. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU. NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES. CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> I WILL HAVE A FULL REPORT NEXT WEEK. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THE LAST DAY OF WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH WE DID HAVE A GREAT EVENT JUST A WEEK OR SO AGO WHERE WE HAD THE LEADERS FROM THE COMMUNITY SPEAK ON A PANEL.
WE HAD LOTS OF WOMEN THAT ATTENDED EVEN SEVERAL MEN THAT WERE THERE. THANK YOU TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR WORK ON IT. AND THANK YOU TO ALL THE LADIES THAT WERE WILLING TO GET UP THERE AND TALK TO US.
PARKS & RECREATION REPORT. CHAIRPERSON HOLLE MONEY YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. I WILL HAVE FULL REPORT NEXT WEEK. WIRE READY FOR TRANSPORTATION STREET AND GARAGE.
I WILL HAVE A REPORT NEXT THURSDAY.
THANK YOU A SHOUTOUT TO CHRIS COWAN FOR INSTALLING NEW LIGHTS OVER THERE OFF OF CRAFT AND SUMMER STREET.
WE MET OVER THERE AND WE ALSO SEE ANOTHER NEED FOR SOMETHING ELSE. I WANT TO THANK YOU.
[9) NEW BUSINESS ]
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>> SO NOTED. >> UNDER NEW BUSINESS.
RESOLUTION 59D-2021-22. REQUESTING THE REGOTTENAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE PREPARE AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN WARD 6.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH IS THE SPONSOR.
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
WE'VE ALL DISCUSSED THIS TODAY.
AND SHARED IDEAS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT MR. TYNDALL HAS BROUGHT BEFORE US. I SAY THANK YOU MR. TYNDALL FOR DO THAT. WE NEEDED THAT DONE IN THE COMMUNITY. I'VE BEEN OVER THERE ALL MY LIFE. I WILL NOT TELL YOU MY AGE.
ANYWAYS SOME YEARS. IT WAS AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD. A VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE KNOW WHEN PEOPLE DIE. CHILDREN MOVE OUT.
THAT LEAVES THE AREA KIND OF IN SKELETON STATE.
THIS RESOLUTION IS REQUESTING THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE, PREPARE AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE MAP TO
[01:50:04]
REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN WARD 6.I DON'T WANT TO READ THE WHOLE RESOLUTION.
BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT.
IF YOU WANT ME TO READ IT LET ME KNOW.
I'M TRYING TO SAVE TIME. WE KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALWAYS MAKE RECOMMEND DAILGS FOR ALL ZONE CHANGES. THAT'S PART OF THEIR JOB.
THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. AND SO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE FINAL SAY. AND SO BASED UP ON THE RESEARCH I'VE DONE IN MY COMMUNITY.
I HAVE SIGNATURES FROM A LOT OF THE CITIZENS WHO I HAVE GIVEN TO YOU THIS EARLIER. WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOMES IN THERE WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY AND HOUSING WITH MR. NEW BURN, WE KNOW THAT SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSES CAN GO UP FOR SINGLE FAMILIES, SINGLE PARENTS PUTTING R-3 WE WILL BE SOMETHING WE TRY TO PREVENT AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD DUPLEXES SOMETHING MAKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNSTABLE. WE TRY TO MAKE THIS STABLE ENVIRONMENT. I LIVE OVER THERE.
IT'S NOT JUST FOR MY HOUSE. BUT I JUST HAPPEN TO BE IN THAT AREA. SPEAKING TO THE RESIDENTS THERE WHEN THIS CAME ABOUT, I HELPED SIGN A PETITION.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE ANY MORE HOW IT AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU DON'T SLEEP.
THEY DO EVERYTHING. OUT OF DISRESPECT.
NO MATTER HOW NICE YOU BE TO THEIR VISITORS.
YOU STILL SOMETIMES GET MISTREATED.
WITH THAT BEING SAID I THINK IF YOU ALL WOULD JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND THIS WAS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD YOU WANT THIS IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE NOT KNOWING WHO WOULD BE THERE FOR SIX MONTHS? NOT KNOWING WHAT IS BROUGHT IN. WHAT IS BEING HOUSED.
THIS RESOLUTION IS TO SEE ABOUT GETTING A PLANNING COMMISSION TO PREPARE AND INITIATE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTIES.
THAT TRACK IS ON THE BACK OF YOUR PAPER.
THAT SMALL AREA. IT'S ONLY RESIDENTIAL.
NO AFFECT ON COMMERCIAL WHATSOEVER.
WE WILL BE WORKING IN COLLABORATION AGAIN.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I KNOW THE TYPE OF HOUSES THEY DO BUILD. THESE ARE NOT THE SMALL LITTLE BIT OF HOUSES. WE NEED THAT.
I SPEAK FROM MY HEART ON THIS.
THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I WOULDN'T WANT YOU ALL TO SAY SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID YEARS AGO.
WE HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT COME IN FROM THEY HAVE HOUSING AREA RIGHT UP THE HILL HERE.
THOSE NEW APARTMENTS UP THERE THAT WERE PUT THERE.
THEY PACK THE HOUSE IN THE PLACE.
THEY SAID THAT WAS THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY CAME IN SOLIDARITY.
THEY HAD OVER 200 CALLS IN ONE MONTH FROM ALL OF THOSE APARTMENTS. IT HAS RIPPED THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S NO PEACE.
WITH THAT BEING SAID. THIS IS MY RESOLUTION AND I HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THIS.
AS THE SPEAKER SAID LOOK AT THE LONG-TERM EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY. I KNOW THE CITIZENS WILL BE WATCHING. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW, HEY, IF YOU DO ANYTHING FOR JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO, YOU'RE NOT HEARING THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE WHY WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> I WOULD LIKE FIRST SAY I DO LIKE TO SEE MIXED USE HOUSING.
BUT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED BECAUSE IT'S HISTORICAL.
[01:55:02]
NOT NECESSARILY WE DON'T WANT APARTMENTS.THIS IS A HISTORICAL LEGACY NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WE SHOULD PROTECT. MY QUESTION TO MR. TYNDALL.
DID HE LEAVE? >> MR. TYNDALL, IF YOU DON'T
MIND, COME FORWARD. >> IN RESPECT TO THE CONVERSATION EARLIER, IS THIS MORE PROTECTIVE OR LESS PROTECTIVE THAN WHAT IS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW? UNTIL THE STUDY IS COMPLETED?
>> REMIND THE REQUEST R-2A? >> YES.
>> THE BASIC ANSWER IS MORE PROTECTIVE IN A SENSE THAT'S IT'S SINGLE FAMILY ONLY BUT THAT GRANDFATHERING ISSUE
WOULD BE THE CONCERN. >> EVEN THOUGH IT'S A
SHORT-TERM FIX. >> AND WE WOULD DO IT AGAIN
IN A YEAR OR SO. >> I'M JUST -- THIS ORDINANCE RESOLUTION IS ASKING YOU TO PREPARE THE ORDINANCE; RIGHT? WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT WE WANT YOU TO REVIEW AND PREPARE THE ORDINANCE AS
COUNCILMEMBER SMITH HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
THEY HAVE TO CYCLE THROUGH THE MANNING COMMISSION.
THIS RESOLUTION IF PASSED WOULD BASICALLY BE INITIATING R2-A ZONING CHANGE FOR THE PROPERTIES REQUESTED DOWN THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION LIKE THE ZONE CHANGE AND BACK TO YOU AS AN ACTUAL ZONING WITH PUBLIC HEARING AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE. COUNCILPERSON MARK COMMITTEE. MARQUEE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I AM WONDERING HOW LONG WOULD THIS PROCESS TAKE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GO IN AND LOOK AT HIM IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS ASSESSMENT?
>> WE WOULD TREAT THIS LIKE NORMAL ZONING REQUEST.
I COULD TAKE A MONTH DUE TO SIZE OF IT.
AND GETTING THE NOTIFICATION OUT PROPERLY.
CUT OFF NOR NEXT MEETING THIS WOULD BE HEARD IN MAY.
YOU WOULD GET IT BACK END OF MAY FOR JUNE 1 FIRST
READING. >> WHAT DOES THIS CHANGE HAVE TO DO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GUY.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN? >> I DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING
TO DO WITH IT. >> YOU CAN REZONE.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO THIS. WE WILL PROBABLY BEGIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY PRETTY QUICKLY.
GETTING THE RFP OUT. BEING SUCH A SMALL AREA.
IF WE GET THE RIGHT FIRM THAT GETS THE GROUND RUNNING. WE HAVE THAT DONE IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS. IT'S TAKING US 18 MONTHS TO DO THE WHOLE COUNTY AND CITY.
WE CAN DO PRETTY QUICKLY DEPENDING ON WHO WE HIRE.
I BELIEVE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU WOULD DO, IF YOU LEFT R-3 OR DECIDE TO DO THIS WE WOULD PROBABLY ENTER TO THAT
>> IF ANYTHING CAME IN FOR R-6.
>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO RESPECT THEM.
>> WHETHER WE CHANGE IT OR NOT.
>> CORRECT. >> FOR INSTANCE, MR. BAKER.
YOU MAY WANT TO ASSIST ME. YOU HAVE A CASE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. IF YOU AFFIRMATIVE THE NEXT TWO READING. REZONED TO R-6.
BUT IN THE TIME OURS WILL COME A MONTH OR TWO AFTER THAT SECOND READING, AND YOU REZONE R2-A.
I WOULD GO BACK TO R2-A. ANY OTHER PROPERTIES BROUGHT IN DURING THAT TWO-MONTH WINDOW THEY WOULD ALSO IN AND WOULD BE POSSIBLY CHANGED BACK.
IT'S WITHIN THE POWER AND RIGHT OF THE CITY TO REZONE AND REZONE PROPERTIES. YOU COULD OPEN UP TO LAWSUIT BECAUSE OF THE SHORT WINDOW BETWEEN THE APPLICANT WISHES AND WHAT YOU WERE DOING THERE.
>> THEY WENT R-6 TOMORROW. I WOULD REVERT THEM BACK.
>> UNLESS YOU TOOK THE THREE LOTS OUT OF THE AREA.
>> IF WE WAIT FOR THE STUDY, THEN IT CAN KIND OF BE DIVIDED UP? LIKE WHEN THE STUDY HAPPENS WE CAN SEE WHAT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE.
[02:00:01]
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S NOT ADVISED TO REZONE.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK INVOLVED.
BUT ALSO I THINK WE'VE PROVEN R-3 MAYBE ISN'T GOING TO RAPID CHANGE IN ANOTHER NINE MONTHS OF COMPLETING A
>> MR. BAKER. >> EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD TO IT. YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THE DOCTRINE OF INVESTED RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE STATUTORY LAW. AND SO IF THERE IS A PROPERTY, A ZONE, A PARTICULAR CLASSIFICATION AT SOME POINT IN TIME, AND EVEN IF IT GETS CHANGED TO SOME LATER POINT IN TIME, IF A PROPERTY OWNER OR IF HE EXPENDS FUND. TURNS SOME DIRT.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN TRIGGER THE VESTED RIGHT LAW. AND UNDER THE VESTED RIGHT LAW, WHAT A DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER GETS TO DO THEY COULD CHOOSE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE OLD ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT THE TIME THE VESTED RIGHT ARE TRIGGERED. OR THEY CAN DECIDE TO FALL UNDER THE NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
EVEN IF YOU PASS A NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION, THAT'S NOT GOING TO STOP SOME DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER FROM BEING GOVERNED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OR PROHIBITIONS OF AT THE PRIOR ZONING CLASSIFICATION IF THE VESTED RIGHT HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED.
AND IT'S A PRETTY COMPLICATED LAW.
THERE'S A BUNCH OF HOOPS YOU GOT TO JUMP THROUGH.
SIMPLY PUT IT WOULD BE A RACE FOR SOMEONE R- LOT TO GET A PLAT APPROVED PRIOR TO THE SECOND READING OF A BLANKET ZONE CHANGE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SORT OF BEATING THE CLOCK. IT.
>> WOULD BE DIFFICULT FRANKLY FOR PRACTICAL REASONS UNLESS SOMEONE HAS GOT THEIR ENGINEERING PLANS READY. THEY GOT THEIR CONSTRUCTION LOAN. THEY GOT TO BE READY TO GO PRESUMABLY YOU TALK ABOUT IF THE ZONING CHANGE PASSES, OR THE -- THERE'S ADDITIONAL ZONING CHANGE LATER THROUGH THE STUDY, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE FEW MONTHS DIFFERENCE MAYBE THREE OR FOUR AT MOST.
IT'S NOT LIKELY. THE RISK IS PRETTY LOW.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I JUST WANT TO ASK AT THE END OF THIS, MAYOR, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS? I DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS HERE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE STUDY.
>> THE MONEY IS AVAILABLE. WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL TO START THAT STUDY.
IT'S MONIES WE CAN READILY EXPEND UPON THE DECISION
WE WILL DO THE STUDY. AND WE CAN STILL VOTE ON
THIS RESOLUTION. >> THIS VOTE NEXT WEEK WE
CAN DO THE STUDY. >> WE HAVE FOLLOW THE
PROCESS. >> COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> FIRST I WANT TO SAY IN REGARD TO FUNDING FOR THE STUDY, THAT WAS ALREADY EVEN VOTED ON BY THE COMMITTEE WITH THE CGBTE FUND.
IT WAS 15,000 FOR THAT STUDY TO BE COMPLETED.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT VESTED INTEREST.
IF -- VESTED RIGHT, IF I HAVE SPENT MONEY ON THESE ZONING REQUEST, WOULD THAT NOT QUALIFY?
>> IF YOU TALK ABOUT THEY JUST SPENT SOME MONEY IN
CONNECTION WITH A REZONE. >> JUST USING THIS SPECIFIC ONE AND ONLY BECAUSE WE HAD ONE IN FRONT OF US AT THE SAME TIME. THIS PERSON THAT WE HAVE THAT'S IN THIS AREA, THEY HAD TO SPEND MONEY TO BE ABLE TO DO THE ZONING REQUEST.
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE.
IF ALL THEY'VE DONE IS SPENT MONEY ON AN APPLICATION FOR ZONING, MAYBE EVEN ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEES, PROBABLY THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT.
[02:05:01]
IF THEY HAVE DONE ANY DIRT WORK AT ALL.I MEAN JUST LITERALLY GONE OUT THERE AND SURVEYED AND PUT SOME STAKES. THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE
>> THE LAW A LITTLE BIT GRAY IN THIS AREA ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY QUALIFIES TO TRIGGER VESTED RIGHT.
COUNCILPERSON MARQUEE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
MR. TYNDALL GOING BACK TO THE CASE FROM EARLIER.
LET'S SAY IT PASSES NEXT WEEK.
IF WE GET THIS ORDINANCE GOING THEN, THAT R-6 ESSENTIALLY GOING TO TURN WHATEVER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
IT WOULD BE A ZONING CHANGE. IT WOULD GET A PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD COME BACK WITH ORDINANCE NUMBER. AND WOULD GO THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS AND WOULD HAVE POTENTIAL TO BE VOTED UP OR DOWN AGAIN. AS AN ORDINANCE LIKE A NORMAL ZONING CHANGE. THERE'S A WINDOW.
AGAIN, SECOND READING OF SOMETHING YOU ARE HEARING TODAY ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL NEXT REGULAR SESSION.
NOT NEXT WEEK BUT FOUR OR FIVE WEEKS AFTER THAT.
WE WOULD THEN RETURN SOMETHING ON THE HEALS OF THAT. 2-3 MONTH GAP WHEN THAT GOT FINALIZED AND SECOND READING OF RETURN RESOLUTION OR RETURNED ORDINANCE BASED ON THIS RESOLUTION.
>> OKAY. I GUESS FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD EARLIER WAS THAT IF SOMETHING WAS ZONED DIFFERENTLY AND THEN WITH THE NEW ORDINANCE THAT IT WOULD TURN THAT PREVIOUS ZONING BACK INTO WHAT IT
WAS. >> THERE'S A WINDOW BETWEEN THOSE APPROVALS THAT YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK.
AND, AGAIN, BACK TO VESTING, TYPICALLY, IF YOU EXPEND MONEY, PULL A PERMIT OR GET A SUBDIVISION APPROVED IN THAT WINDOW, YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO HIS FOUR R-6 LOTS. THEY WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED LOTS. HE WOULD CONTINUE HIS WORK
UNDER VESTED RIGHT. >> THAT'S A VERY TIGHT WINDOW. IT WOULD GO BACK TO ORIGINAL THEN. THAT'S A TIGHT WINDOW.
YOU HAVE THREE LOTS THAT ARE PROBABLY UNDER SIZE.
HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE.
>> OKAY. IT'S JUST -- IT'S INTERESTING SITUATION BEING THAT -- PERFECT STORM TODAY.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE THE DEVELOPER WILL LOSE THEIR PLANS AND THAT SENSE IF WE DO THIS, WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED TO COME BACK AND REZONE?
>> UNLESS HE WAS DENIED. IF THIS PASSES THEY COULD
COME BACK AGAIN. >> BECAUSE IT PASSES THEY COULD COME AGAIN. IF YOU PASS YOU CAN COME BACK AND REZONE IN IF YOU FAIL YOU WITHDRAWAL OR YOU FAIL AT THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU GOT TO COME BACK A YEAR
>> THAT WILL BE THE NEXT RESOLUTION.
YOU CAN ASK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR BASICALLY A VARIANCE TO LET YOU GO BACK WITHIN A YEAR.
THAT WILL BE THE NEXT VARIANCE.
NEXT RESOLUTION WE HEAR TONIGHT.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING IS I WILL MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
IS THAT TO BE VESTED IN WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING THE DO, WITH ZONING IF SOMEONE CAME IN WITH A ZONE, ORDINANCE, CHANGE, ZONE CHANGE, AND WE VOTE C-2.
WE VOTE NO. EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW WE ARE WAITING ON SOMETHING ELSE. WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP IT.
WE SAY NO, THEY ARE NOT INVESTED.
THEN IF -- ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THE FLIP SIDE.
IF WE VOTED YES, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE SECOND VOTE. IF WE HAVE THE THIS
RESOLUTION ALREADY APPROVED. >> THEY HAVEN'T STARTED
>> FROM WHAT YOU TELL ME. I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.
VESTING VERY COMPLICATED. WRITTEN BY LAWYERS.
IT'S PERFECTLY COMPLICATED. THEY SAY IN 7 PAGES WHAT THEY SHOULD SAY IN ONE. INVESTING IN PROPERTIES, IT DOES TALK ABOUT PULLING PERMITS AND THAT IT TALKS ABOUT CHANGES TO THE CODE DURING -- WE HAVE THINGS THAT WERE VESTED BY 6, 7 YEARS AGO RUNNING WITH THEIR
[02:10:02]
VESTING BECAUSE THE RULES HAVE CHANGED BUT BECAUSE I CONTINUED AND KEPT MY PLAN CURRENT, I GET TO CONTINUE THE AUTUMNWOOD SUBDIVISION. THEY JUST SLOWLY KEEPING IT UP. YOU GET UP TO 15 YEARS TO FINISH IT. WITH A SMALL CASE LIKE THIS.THERE'S A WINDOW THAT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER GOT PERMIT AND GOT SUBDIVISION PLAN AGAIN IT WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE COURTS. HOW MANY DAYS DO WE GET?
>> IT'S EXTREMELY COMPLICATED LAW.
IT READS LIKE THE IRS CODE. EVEN TO PRACTICE TIGGER, LAWYERS WHO WORK IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LAW.
THAT WOULD TELL YOU THIS IS COMPLICATED TO US.
REALLY ALL IT DOES IT GIVES PROTECTION IN THE SIMPLE TERMS I CAN EXPLAIN IT GIVES PROTECTION TO DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, LEGISLATIVE BODIES, CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME ON THEM.
AFTER THEY STARTED BILLING. IT'S LIKE OKAY YOU DON'T GET TO CHANGE MY ZONING IN A WAY THAT ADDS ADDITIONAL COST B BURDENS ON ME.
I GET TO PICK. I CAN GO WITH NEW ZONING THAT YOU IMPOSED ON MY PROPERTY IF IT SERVES MY INTEREST. USUALLY IT DOESN'T.
OR I CAN STICK TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT THE TIME I STARTED EXPENDING WHAT'S CALLED INVESTMENT BACKED EXPECTATIONS.
WHEN THEY SPEND FUNDS SIGNIFICANT FUNDS THE RULES GET FROZEN AND THEY CAN PICK TO USE THE OLD ZONING CLASSIFICATION. WHAT APPLIES TO IS PROPERTY SOMEONE STARTED DEVELOPING IT.
BUT THAT IS MORE THAN JUST A REZONING APPLICATION.
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. AND IT IS TRUE WHAT HE ALSO SAID. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS. IF YOU RENEW YOUR PERMIT AND YOU CAN SHOW THAT YOU'RE DOING JUST ENOUGH UNDER THE LAW. SPELLING OUT WHAT IS REQUIRED. IF YOU CAN SHOW YOU DO JUST ENOUGH TO KEEP YOUR PROJECT GOING, BASICALLY, YOU ULTIMATELY COULD HAVE UP TO 15 YEARS BEFORE YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY FINISH IT. AND SO THE VESTED RIGHT DOCTRINE CAN'T APPLY FOR 15 YEARS.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MAYOR. WALK ME THROUGH THIS.
YOU KEEP SAYING THIS WILL GO JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS GOES THROUGH. BUT IT'S BACKWARD.
USUALLY WE'RE LETTING THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA KNOW WE WILL REZONE THIS SPOT. IN THIS SITUATION WE LET PEOPLE KNOW WE WILL REZONE YOUR PROPERTY.
HOW I GUESS WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? ARE WE GOING TO SEND THEM LETTERS.
YOU MENTIONED A LOT OF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIVE HERE.
I GUESS I KIND NEED YOU WALK ME THROUGH WHAT THAT WILL
LOOK LIKE. >> IT'S NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. IT'S THE CITY ITSELF.
THAT MEANS ALL THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO GET NOTICE OF REZONING AND THEY CAN COME AND OBJECT TO IT OR SAY THEY SUPPORT IT EITHER WAY.
BUT JUST BECAUSE THE CITY IS SEEKING THE REZONING AND JUST BECAUSE NONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE; AND WE HAD TO GIVE THEM NOTICE THERE'S STILL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ALSO NOTIFY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN SO MANY FEET. AND SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET A NOTICE BOTH BECAUSE THEY OWN PROPERTY AND BECAUSE THEIR PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OTHER PROPERTIES. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR
QUESTIONS CAN ? >> WHERE DO THE SIGNS GO?
[02:15:12]
>> WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER ZONING IS JUST THE AD IN THE PAPER. SMALL ENOUGH AREA, 315 LOTS.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM SENDING LETTERS OUT TO THEM PLUS MAYBE 50 FAMILY AROUND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WOULD GET LETTERS. SIGNS, AT ENTRANCES TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS DOZEN SIGNS ON EACH ROAD, MAYBE.
BUT SIGNS AND LETTERS ARE NOT REQUIRED.
AND IT'S REALLY GIVES ME PAUSE.
BECAUSE AS WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I THINK WHAT WAS REALLY IDENTIFIED TODAY IS THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ZONING CHANGES WHETHER IT'S ZONES WHAT'S END ZONES WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE ZONES IN THE SIZE OF THE ZONES, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE PLACE OVER THE NEXT 3 TO FIVE TO SIX YEARS TO ACCOMPLISH SOME OF THE GOALS IN PLAN THAT WILL BUBBLE UP.
IF I DO AN ENTIRE SQUARE MILE.
WILL WE NOTIFY EVERYONE IN THAT AREA? WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT'S WRIGHT AND -- RIGHT AND BE CONSISTENT. PETITION OF A PROPERTY OWNER OR AGENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR THE CITY COUNCIL CAN START A ZONING CHANGE ON A PROPERTY.
IT ALL FOLLOWS THE SAME PROCESS AS SOON AS IT STARTED. BASICALLY WHAT YOU DO WOULD BE APPLY FOR ZONE CHANGE. FOR 315 LOTS.
>> IS THAT CLEAR? >> I DON'T LIKE IT.
>> THANK YOU. >> APPARENTLY PLANNING DIRECTOR AND ATTORNEYS WENT TO THE SAME SCHOOL.
>> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
WHAT I WANT TO ASK. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS NOW AND THEN IN HOWEVER MUCH LONGER AFTER WE GET THIS PLAN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTANT, GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING AGAIN.
WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF DOING THIS NOW AND THEN DO IT AFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTING COMES BACK WITH
US WITH A PLAN? >> BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING OUR FAMILIES THROUGH STUFF TWICE.
IF WE DO THAT. >> YOU'RE CORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU REZONE IT NOW.
STUDY IT AND THEN COME BACK AGAIN, SOME OR ALL THE LOTS MAY HAVE TO GET REZONED AGAIN.
ALONG WITH THE POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE.
I'M FINE WITH THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT CALLED OUT.
WHAT THIS DOES IS BASICALLY I WILL SAY IN LIEU OF MORATORIUM. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
PAUSES DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA TO BEING ONLY SINGLE FAMILY AS THE DEVELOPMENT GET STUDIED.
YOU WILL GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TWO TIMES INSTEAD OF ONCE WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR. STUDY IT AND THEN THERE MAY BE RECOMMENDATION THAT COME OUT THAT SAY, WELL, THESE LOTS NEED TO GO BACK TO THIS.
MAYBE IT'S R-3 OR SOMETHING ELSE.
>> HOW DOES R-2A PROTECT IT FROM SOMEONE NOT COMING IN AND TRYING TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY?
>> IT DOES NOT. >> I WILL GO TO VOTE.
WHAT IT DOES. IT STRIPS THE ABILITY TO GO TO A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX FOR 26 LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ABOUT 75 THAT HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE SIZE TO DEVELOP INTO A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX.
>> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR COUNCILMEMBER SMITH. R 2-A IF YOU CHANGE IT AFTER SECOND READING THEN IT WILL WHEN IT COMES BACK FROM THE REGION AL-PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'S KIND OF LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT SHE WANTS.
SHE DOES NOT WANT MULTIFAMILY.
AM I CORRECT? >> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU
HAVE THE FLOOR. >> I HAVE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS. >> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE HARD DECISION TO MAKE NEXT WEEK. AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE WERE TALK LEGALLY ABOUT THE BUILDER.
AND IF WE DO THIS MONEY WISE OR THAT MONEY WISE.
THERE'S STILL AN INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THIS ROPE THAT WE NEED TO JUST BECAUSE WE CAN DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD.
WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OUR DECISIONS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE HE IS KIND OF CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
I'M NOT TALKING HOW TO VOTE. JUST MAKE SURE YOU VOTES
IF WE DO A MASS REZONING WOULD THAT EFFECT THE TAX APPRAISAL AND INDIVIDUAL FAMILY'S TAXES THEY PAY ON A
YEARLY BASIS? >> I'M NOT THE ASSESSOR OF PROPERTY. I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO
[02:20:01]
ANSWER THAT. IF YOU HAVE ABILITY TO PUT TRIPLEX ON THE LOT. THERE'S TWO WAYS THIS MAY GO. MAY BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL LOT. THEY MAY ALSO CONSIDER IT A FULL POTENTIAL OF THE LOT WHEN THEY ASSESS IT.I WOULD HAVE TO -- I'LL ASK THAT QUESTION TO ASSESSOR AND FORWARD YOU HER RESPONSE.
I WISH I KNEW THE ANSWER. THAT'S A TRICKY ONE.
>> I DON'T WANT PEOPLE FORCED TO PAY MORE TAXES.
IF ANYTHING IT WOULD REDUCE THE TAXES ON THE LOTS.
I WILL GET YOU CLEAR ANSWER FROM THE ASSESSOR.
I MAY BE NO CHANGE. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> COUNCILPERSON MARQUEE. >> MR. TYNDALL.
COMMENT. >> COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
>> WE ARE GOING TO ITEM 2 UNDER NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION 60-2021-22. AUTHORIZING REAPPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE FOR GEORGE KENNEDY PROPERTY.
COUNCILPERSON RICHMAN WAS THE SPONSOR.
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
THIS PRETTY MUCH IS APPLICANT WHO A LITTLE BIT DREW THEIR APPLICATION PRIOR TO IT COMING TO US.
THERE'S A NEW BUYER FOR THIS PARCEL THAT'S LOOKING TO GET THIS REZONED R-1 INSTEAD OF R-4.
MR. TYNDALL MAY HAVE SOME INSIGHT FOR US.
WHAT THIS IS JUST RECONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THE R-1 ZONING APPLICATION BY THE APRIL 25TH DEADLINE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT FOR THAT FULL YEAR TO COME BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL. AND I BELIEVE THIS REQUIRES
THREE-FOURTHS MAJORITY. >> JUST TO ALLOW IT GO BACK APPLICANT LIVE TO RPC WHERE THEY WOULD DETERMINE AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO US FOR CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING.
>> COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER; YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
THIS IS REASON THAT RUINED MY CHRISTMAS.
>> THIS IS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE ZONING APPLICATION BEFORE WAS TO PUT APARTMENTS BACK THERE. THEY E-MAILED ALL OF US.
WE HAD MEETING. IN MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSES.
THEY TRIED TO BURN ME AT THE STAKE.
THEY WERE UPSET ABOUT THIS. WHILE THAT WAS GOING ON, I HEARD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WELL IF THEY WOULD PUT NICER HOUSES BACK THERE THEN I WOULDN'T BE HURT BY IT. I ASK MY NEIGHBORHOOD HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS. AND YOU STILL HAVE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE, NO, I WANT TO KEEP THE AG.
I WANT TO SEE THE DEER AND THE DUCKS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. HOWEVER, THERE'S SOMEWHAT OF CONSENSUS THAT THIS IS THE LEAST OFFENSIVE OPTION.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THIS.
I WOULD ASK THAT WE GO AHEAD AND DO THIS.
I'M SURE I'M GOING TO GET KICK BACK AGAIN AND I WILL EVERYBODY KNOW ABOUT THE KICK BACK NEXT WEEK.
BUT LIKE I SAID THIS PREVIOUS SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING IN HER MAYBED.
THIS IS FLY NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD ASK, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S TIER 3 INVOLVE CONNECTING OUR ROAD TO MERIWETHER. THE REASON THEY WITHDRAW THE APARTMENTS IS BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE A SECONDARY EGRESS AND INGRESS. ONCE THAT GETS DONE, THERE'S NO TELLING WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO PUT BACK THERE.
AND I JUST HAPPEN TO THINK R-1 WOULD BE GLORIOUS.
IF YOU GUY WOULD VOTE YES FOR THIS, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
>> YOU MAY WANT TO CHOOSE ANOTHER WORD THAN KICK BACK.
>> PUSH BACK. >> KICK BACK IS SOMETHING
ELSE. >> COUNCILPERSON ALLEN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THE GRAMMAR.
THIS IS ONE THAT NEVER CAME TO US BEFORE.
GOING FROM R-4. IT'S GOING FROM R-1 TO R-4.
>> HE HAS IT. >> YOUNG CIVIL COUNCILPERSON ALLEN HAS THE FLOOR. IT'S GOING FROM AG TO R-1 INSTEAD OF AG TO R-4. THERE WAS APPLICATION
[02:25:01]
REQUESTED FROM AG TO R-4. THEY PAID THE FEE.WE DID TO WORK. DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AFTER BEING DEFERRED THEY WITHDREW IT. ONCE INITIATED.
I MEANS PAY YOUR FEESMENT. STARTED THE PROCESS.
WE LET THE PUBLIC KNOW IT WAS BEING ZONED FOR.
YOU HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR IF YOU DON'T PASS.
THEY WITHDREW AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY ARE ASKING WITHIN THE YEAR TO COME BACK NOW IT WILL GO AG, R-1 REQUEST. HAS TO PASS HERE TO ALLOW
THEM TO MAKE THE REQUEST. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> THERE'S NOTHING OUR CODE OR GUIDE I ASKED FOR R-4 BUT WANT TO DO R-1 I FIGURE IT WOULD BE BETTER.
THERE'S NOTHING IN CODE THAT ALLOWS TO US DO THAT.
THERE'S ONE WAY TO HANDLE. IF THEY DEFERRED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE AMENDED REQUEST WE SENT BRAND-NEW MATERIAL AND THEY KEPT IT ACTIVE.
WHAT -- THE REASON THIS LAW IN PLACE THE PUBLIC THINKS IT'S OVER. THEY ARE LIKE WHAT'S THIS AGAIN. DEVELOPER IN THE PAST WE'RE TALKING 80S AND NINETIES USED TO WEAROUT THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY COUNCIL.
I WILL GO FOR R-4. WHEN THE PUBLIC COMES OUT YOU GO BACK TO R-4 AND SNEAK IT IN.
THIS IS REALLY TO KEEP THE PROCESS AS OPEN AND PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT WEARING OUR NEIGHBORS HAVING TO COME OUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO FIGHT ONE REQUEST OR
ANOTHER. >> I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU WHAT THE CHAPTER 11.11 THE WORDING IS UNLESS ZONING BY THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ACTION SHALL BE INITIATED FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT AFFECTING THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND MORE OFTEN THAN ONCE EVERY 12 MONTHS PROVIDED, HOWEVER, BY RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THREE FOURTHS MEMBERS THAT THE ACTION MAY BE INITIATED ANYTIME.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RADING YOUR RESOLUTION.
ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A COMMENT?
>> COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I'VE BEEN PRESSING MY BUTTON ALL NIGHT.
THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DID A LOT OF TALKING TONIGHT. I HAVE STUFF TO GET OFF MY CHEST. LET ME PULL UP.
I HAVE A STATEMENT TO MAKE. AND I TYPED IT.
I WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON BILL THAT PASSED THIS WEEK AT THE TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE.
I UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT OF COLLEAGUES HERE.
THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T BRING THIS UP FOR ANY KIND OF VOTE. BUT THIS IS A LAW THAT EFFECTS ME AND OTHERS HERE IN CLARKSVILLE.
I FEEL A SENSE OF HUMILITY IN THIS SEAT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT FROM THIS PLATFORM. EVEN AT THE RISK OF INEVITABLY ACCUSED OF SHOWBOATING.
HB-2670 WHICH STATES, EAST INTRODUCED FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION FROM TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO DEVISIVE CONCEPTS TAN IDEOLOGIES OR POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS OF STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES. THERE'S QUITE A FEW THINGS IN THE BILL I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH REGARDING EQUALITY. THE BILL IS BEYOND EXHAUSTIVE. CONTRADICTORY, AND PROBLEMATIC TO BOTH STUDENTS AND EDUCATORS.
AND PROHIBITS FOR INSTANCE ACADEMIC STUDY AND DISCOURSE ABOUT SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.
IN MY OPINION THIS BARS NOT ONLY WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS COME TO VIEW AS THE SIGNING GUILT TO PERSONS OF A PARTICULAR RACE. IE WHITE PEOPLE.
IT BANS THE TEACHING OF FACTUAL AND INTEGRAL HISTORY. THIS IS GREATLY PROBLEMATIC TO ME PERSONALLY AS THE HISTORIAN AND THE STUDENT AT AUSTIN PE STATE UNIVERSITY. ASSUMING THAT I FEEL I CAN GET AN ADEQUATE GRADUATE EDUCATION UNDER THESE NEW REGULATIONS, I CERTAINLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT I COULD
[02:30:02]
TEACH UNDER THEM. I WILL NOT TEACH WATERED TOWN HALF HISTORY TO APPEASE HURT FEELING OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL IGNORANT LAWS.THESE DEMANDS ARE WILLFUL IGNORANCE AND SET FUTURE GENERATION UP FOR FAILURE. WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO CALIFORNIA OUR TENNESSEE BUT MOST OF US DON'T WANT TO 1920 OUR TENNESSEE EITHER. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILPERSON MARQUEE. >> TOMORROW IS THE FIRST FRIDAY OF THE MONTH BEING APRIL.
AND THAT PARK AND REC HAS A PROGRAM WITH BOOST OUR FAMILIES AT THE NATURE CENTER FOR CHILDREN'S READING. FROM 10:15 TO 11:15.
BRING YOUR KIDS. >> ANY OTHER MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A COMMENT? ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL? MR. SELCO IF YOU WOULD APPROACH. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
>> MY NAME IS ROB SELCO. I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CITY FOR PARTNERING WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITARIAN ON RICHARDSON STREET. WE'RE COMPLETING A PROJECT OF FIVE AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
CITY GAVE THE HOME AND WE WILL PRESENT KEYS TO FAMILY NUMBER FIVE THERE. [APPLAUSE] MARIA SANTANA AND THEIR DAUGHTER ELON DRA.
COMPLETE TWO-YEAR PROJECT. EXPRESS GRATITUDE.
THIS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY WAS -- PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY HAS MADE IT POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE NOT JUST AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT HOMEOWNERSHIP.
THESE FIVE FAMILIES WENT FROM PAYING RENT TO SOMEONE ELSE TO PAYING AN AFFORDABLE MORTGAGE AND BEGINNING TO BUILT EQUITY FOR THEMSELVES. THESE FAMILY ARE LOW OR LOW-INCOME ALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE LIVING WITH DISABILITY AND SOME CASES MORE THAN ONE DISABILITY. SO THIS FORMER CITY PROPERTY NOW MEANS OWNERSHIP FOR FAMILY WITH VERY FEW OPTIONS. PARTNERSHIP IS NOT JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR DONOR WITH US.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY HABITAT HAS TWO FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.
WE'RE SMALL BUT BACKED UP BY MANY COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS.
WHO CARRY OUT THE FAMILY SELECTION THE HOMEOWNER EDUCATION. THE FINANCIAL COUNCILING AND OF COURSE THE CONSTRUCTION. OUR FIRST BUILDINGER FOR HABITAT WAS CLARKSVILLE FIRE AND RESCUE.
THANKS TO FREDRY MERCURY. THAT'S MY VIRAL MOMENT.
THANKS TO CHIEF FREDRY MONTGOMERY.
JOEL READER, DAVID WHILES CONSTRUCTION.
GABING AND ERIKA AND THE BIBLE BROS, THE BIBLE STUDY, HEY LET'S BUILD A HOUSE. SPONSOR OF HABITAT LIVING HOPE CHURCH AND PASTOR DEREK SMITH AND GREG MOORE.
LEGENDS, BANK. CLARKSVILLE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. THE SPONSOR DIDN'T JUST WRITE A CHECK. THEY WORKED ON THE HOMES.
LITERALLY BREAKING ROCKS. SMOO SMOOTHING OUT THE FOUNDATION.
LANDSCAPING. MAKING DUMP RUNS WITH US.
THEY WORKED THROUGH RAIN AND SNOW.
THESE WILL BIG AND SMALL TEAMS FROM FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH. CHURCH OF CHRIST, CLARKSVILLE FELLOWSHIP. MONTGOMERY COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE. MARY AND JILL WILLIAMS. SANDIERSER. KIM STEPHENS AND CULIC.
ASSOCIATION OF REALTOR FIRST PARTNER.
GRATEFUL FOR THEM MAKE THING PROJECT POSSIBLE BUT FOR ALL THEY DO FOR NONPROFITS. THEY ARE TIRELESS AND DEDICATED TO MAKING A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FOR LOTS OF NONPROFIT GROUPS HERE IN CLARKSVILLE.
TO DENNIS NEW BURN. HE CAME IN DURING COVID AND OBVIOUSLY HAD A LOT GOING. THESE BEEN GENEROUS WITH TIME AND GUIDANCE. I KNOW THIS IS A LONG LIST.
COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH LONGER. I LEFT OUT ALL OF THE COMMITTEE. IMPORTANT MEMBERS.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITARIAN MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS SHORTHAND FOR ALL OF THESE PEOPLE THAT WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE IN
[02:35:02]
LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME TO SHARE THE AMERICAN DREAM OF OWNING A HOME. AND YOU HAVE ALL BEEN FAITHFUL PARTNERS IN THIS. THANK YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT VOTED FOR US TO GET THIS PROPERTY.MEMBERS, OF THE CITY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO VOTED TO GIVE US SOME PROPERTIES LAST YEAR; THANK YOU.
AND NOT A MOMENT TOO SOON. WE JUST APPROVED FIVE MORE FAMILIES. THANK YOU MAYOR PITTS.
IT'S NICE TO BE WITH
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.