[00:00:06]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE, APRIL 28, 2022, EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL.
MR. TYNDALL CALLED AND IS GOING TO BE ABOUT FIVE TO TEN MINUTES LATE. SO WE WILL PROCEED WITH OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, WAITING ON HIS ARRIVAL.
LET ME INTRODUCE A COUPLE OF FOLKS AS WE GET STARTED.
STEPHANIE JENKINS, TROPICAL CROS TRAINING WITH LISA CANFIELD.
AND THEN ERIC BITNER IS HERE SUBSTITUTING FOR MR. BAKER WHO IS STILL LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER.
IN THE BACK, ARTHUR BING, INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR CLARKSVILLE TRANSIT.
[2) CONSENT AGENDA]
YOUR SERVICE. >>> BECAUSE WE ARE WAITING TO MR. TYNDALL, MA'AM, READ THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> ALL ITEMS IN THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL BY THE COUNCIL AND 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 92-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE REAPPORTIONING THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING PERSONS FOR THE OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL ALONG STATE ROUTE 12 AND EAST OLD ASHLAND CITY ROAD\. ORDINANCE 93-2021-22 SECOND READING, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED 2015 FT.
CAMPBELL BOULEVARD AT PUBLIC AUCTION.
ORDINANCE 95-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 FOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS, ORDINANCE 130-2020-21, TO CREATE AND ADD ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR A TOTAL OF $27,460,000. 5. ORDINANCE 96-2021-22, SECOND ORDINANCE 96-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF MARK DAVIS, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF KELLY LANE AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 97-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF JUANITA CHARLES, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PLUM STREET AND E STREET FROM R-3 THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 98-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF BENNY SKINNER, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF FRANKLIN STREET AND EAST COLLEGE STREET FROM R-3 THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 99-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF SAMUEL RENISON BAGGETT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDMONDSON FERRY ROAD AND JEN HOLLOW ROAD FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 100-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF JOHN & JAMES CLARK, LANDMARK GROUP, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF NEEDMORE ROAD AND EAST BOY SCOUT ROAD FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 102-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF SYD & BERRY HEDRICK, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAFAYETTE ROAD AND MONARCH LANE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 103-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
[00:05:03]
MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF HUNTER WINN, ET AL, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BATTS LANE AND BIGLEN ROAD FROM RM-1 SINGLE FAMILY MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 106-2021-22, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF ASCENSION PROPERTIES, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY FRONTING WEST THOMPKINS LANE FROM R-3 THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.RESOLUTION 61-2021-22, A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE AFTER HOURS ESTABLISHMENT BOARD, BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, DESIGNATIONS COMMITTEE, AND THE SENIOR CITIZENS BOARD.
AND ADOPTION OF MINUTES: APRIL 7, 2022
3) FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON >> ANY MEMBER WISH TO SPEAK ON
[3) FINANCE COMMITTEE]
THE CONSENT M AGENDA. SEEING NONE.LET'S MOVE ON PL MR. TYNDALL IST HERE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO FINANCE COMMITTEE, COUNCILPERSON
STREETMAN. >> FIRST READING, ORDINANCE 107-2021-22, FIRST READING AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE EASEMENTS, PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF WAY REQUIRED TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPRING CREEK PARKWAY PROJECT. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE DID VOTE
FOR APPROVAL. >> OKAY, I THINK MR. COWAN WITH THE STREET DEPARTMENT HAS A PRESENTATION TO MAKE TO RUN THROUGH WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO.
WE WILL HAVE A POWERPOINT LOADED HERE.
IT WON'T BE DEATH BY POWERPOINT, BUT IT WILL BE CLOSE.
THE JOKE WAS FUNNIER IN MY HEAD. MR. COWAN, PLEASE LEAD US
THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE ASKING. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.
THIS ORDINANCE IS HERE TO GET PERMISSION TO THE CITY STREET DEPARTMENT TO ACQUIRE 15 PROPERTIES, PORTIONS OF THOSE PROPERTIES OF EASEMENTS, SMALL AMOUNTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, MOSTLY CONSTRUCTION AND SLOPE EASEMENT FROM THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROP PROPERTIES. SPRING CREEK PARKWAY WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR MANY YEARS.
WE ARE GLAD THIS IS FINALLY GETTING TO FRUITION TO BE ABLE TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS THREE-MILE SECTION OF ROADWAY TRENTON ROAD TO WILMA RUDOLPH BIEWSTLED. BOULEVARD.
THE LONG-RANGE TRANSACTION PLAN THAT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DEVELOPED WAS HAD INDICATED THAT 40,000 VEHICLES A DAY COULD BE UTILIZING THIS ROAD BASED ON FUTURE PROJECTIONS.
IT IS HIGHLY NEEDED. PROBABLY THE BIGGEST SINGLE ROADWAY PROJECT THAT WE HAVE ON OUR BOOKS RIGHT NOW, EXCITED TO MOVE FORWARD ON. NEXT SLIDE.
JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION PROCESS. SO THE -- SOME STEPS THAT WE FOLLOW IN REGARDS TO ACQUIRING RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHEN WE WORK WITH FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION OR TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FEDERAL OR STATE FUNDS, THEY REQUIRE THAT WE FOLLOW THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT FROM 1970 WHICH OUTLINES A VERY DETAILED PROCESS OF APPRA APPRAISALS AND REVIEWS.
BEYOND PURCHASING OF THE LAND ITSELF, BUT FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS THEY MIGHT HAVE, ANY OTHER DAMAGES THAT THEY MIGHT BE ENSUING AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT.
SO WE HAVE AGREED TO ONLY HIRE TDOT CERTIFIED APPRAISERS FOR THIS PROCESS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH QUANTIFYING AND COMING UP WITH A VALUE FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND DAMAGES.
SO IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FEEL LIKE, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE TO LEGALLY FOLLOW THIS PROCESS, THIS PROCESS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT TREATS CITIZENS FAIRLY.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE LAND FOR A PUBLIC PROJECT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE GIVEN COMPENSATION FOR EVERYTHING THAT
[00:10:03]
THEY ARE BEING IMPACTED BY. TO GO ON, EVEN AFTER THAT PROCESS HAS GONE THROUGH AND WE HAVE HIRED APPRAISERS AND DONE OUR NEGOTIATIONS, EVEN COME TO CONSENSUS OR AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, MOST HOUSES STILL HAVE A MORTGAGE LENDER THAT HAS SOME INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY.WE HAVE TO ACQUIRE RELEASE FROM THOSE MORTGAGE LENDERS AND THEY ARE OFTENTIMES NOT HERE LOCALLY. THEY ARE OFTENTIMES PART OF A BIG CORPORATE ENTITY AND IT MAY SIT ON SOMEONE'S DESK AND NOT BE REVIEWED FOR MONTHS AT A TIME. OUR HISTORY HAS BEEN, EVEN AFTER WE GET AN APPROVAL FROM A PROPERTY OWNER, WE ARE WAITING ON MORTGAGE COMPANY RELEASE. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THREE AND FOUR MONTHS TO DO THE REVIEWS. THEY ARE ASKING FOR SOMETIMES THREE, FOUR FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS JUST TO EVEN LOOK AT IT.
AND SO WE FELT LIKE THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN COMING ALONG FOR SO LONG AND WE HAVE GOT SEVERAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED BY THIS, THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN ORDER TO GET THIS PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME. ONE THING I SHOULD LET YOU KNOW, DURING THAT PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCESS, WE TAKE THE VALUE THAT OUR APPRAISER HAS COME UP WITH FOR THE EASEMENT, FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WE PLACE THAT WITH THE COURT SYSTEM AND IT GOES IN AND THEY ARE ABLE TO HOLD THAT. SO WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THE MONEY WE THINK IT IS WORTH, THE PROPERTY IS WORTH, AND GIVE THAT TO THE COURT SYSTEM. THAT PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT TIME CAN PETITION TO GET AND RECEIVE A MONEY IMMEDIATELY AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE THAT NEGOTIATION PROCESS SO THAT IF ANY MORE VALUE IS DETERMINED, BASED ON NEGOTIATION OR BASED ON THE COURT RULING, THEN THEY CAN BE COMPENSATED IN ADDITION TO THAT.
WE DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP THEIR ABILITY TO AT LEAST GET WHAT THEY HAVE DEEMED AS AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.
THIS IS A GRAPHIC THAT JUST SHOWS SOME OF THE PROPERTIES.
AGAIN, 15 PROPERTIES, 14 OF THEM ARE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE AS PART OF PHASE ONE FOR THIS PROJECT. AND, AGAIN, OUT OF THE 15 PROPERTIES, EIGHT OF THEM WE ARE WAITING ON THE MORTGAGE COMPANIES FOR THAT. SOME OTHERS, THE COUNTEROFFER THAT WE RECEIVED FROM PROPERTY OWNER WAS TEN TIMES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THERE REALLY WASN'T A WHOLE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE BETWEEN THAT, SO FAR APART.
WE HAVE HAD SOME -- WE HAD ONE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER JUST REFUSES TO SPEAK WITH ANYONE INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT AND THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN REALLY NEGOTIATING FOR ANYTHING.
THEY ARE AGAINST THE PROJECT. WE HAVE ONE PROPERTY, NO. 38, LARGEST ONE ON THE MAP, THAT HAD INDIVIDUAL THAT OWNED THE PROPERTY, IT HAS BEEN PASSED DOWN TO ACTUALLY 31 DIFFERENT HEIRS THAT CURRENTLY RESIDE FROM CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK.
GETTING AUTHORIZATION FROM ALL THOSE PEOPLE AND ALL THAT WOULD REALLY BE A LONG TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS.
IF WE GO THE ROUTE OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND WE STILL CONTINUE TO WORK FOR NEGOTIATION FOR THAT, WHAT THAT DOES ALLOW US TO DO IS TO GAIN POSSESSION SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND BUILD THE PROJECT WHILE WE CONTINUE TO WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS.
SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE BENEFIT FOR THE CITY IN THAT REGARD. ONE MORE PROPERTY HERE ON PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT, THE PROPERTY WHERE THE KOHL'S SHOPPING CENTER IS, IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT, VERY SMALL BITS OF EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY NECESSARY RIGHT AT THE TWO DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS THAT ARE TOUCHING NORTH EDGEWOOD.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MR. COWAN, COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, I KNOW ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD TUESDAY WAS IN REGARD TO, YOU ALREADY HAVE NINE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE AGREED. OUT OF THOSE NINE, I BELIEVE, AS WE DISCUSSED, TEN OF THESE 15 PROPERTIES, IT IS ONLY EASEMENTS THAT WE ARE TAKING. OUT OF THOSE NINE -- OUT OF THE SIX THAT WE HAVE REMAINING, HOW MANY OF THOSE MIGHT BE JUST EASEMENTS AND NOT AN ACTUAL TAKING OF PROPERTY?
>> I BELIEVE THAT FIVE OUT OF THOSE --
>> SO WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THOSE.
>> YES, YES. AND AGAIN, THOSE EASEMENTS ARE SOMETIMES FOR UTILITIES, SOMETIMES FOR CONNECTIONS FOR SLOPE. SOMETIMES JUST FOR ROOM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR THAT'S ONLY TEMPORARY.
SO IT IS NOT A FULL TAKING NECESSARILY, BUT IN ORDER TO BUILD THE ROAD, WE HAVE TO TAKE USE OF A LITTLE BIT OF LAND.
>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON SHAKEENAB YOU
[00:15:04]
ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THE ONE LOT, 31, IS A HOUSE IMPACT BY THIS OR STRICTLY JUST LAND?
>> I BELIEVE THERE IS A HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY?
>> WILL THAT BE IMPACTED. >> NO, THAT WILL NOT.
IT IS WELL INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT IS JUST RIGHT THERE AT THE CONNECTION KENNEDY ROAD IS GOING TO CONNECT INTO PARKWAY, SMALL LITTLE CORNER THAT IS BEING
>> COUNCILPERSON ZACHARIAS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. IF YOU COULD -- WHEN YOU GAVE THIS PRESENTATION DURING THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING YOU TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS PROJECT, AND SORT OF WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING DOING TODAY.
I KNOW FOR ME PERSONALLY, THAT ORDINANCE CARRIES A LOT OF IMPACT WHEN I THINK OF HOW I WANT TO VOTE ON THIS.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD JUST TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE
BIT WITH EVERYBODY. >> SO WHEN THIS PROJECT BEGAN, IT HAS BEEN SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BEFORE WE DID THE ENGINEERING WORK AND I BEGAN TO PURCHASE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THIS PROJECT, DURING WHEN WE FIRST START A PROJECT, THIS IS VERY TYPICAL FOR MOST CAPITAL PROJECTS, THAT WE BRING AN ORDINANCE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW THE MAYOR OR H HIS DESIGNEE ON BEHALF OFE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE HAD THAT AUTHORITY TO DO SO. I THINK THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE -- THAT WAS A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT ALLOWED US TO DO IT FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT. WITH THIS ORDER THANS, WE ARE DEFINING VERY SPECIFIC AMOUNTS. THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE NEEDED FROM EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER AND THAT'S WHY IT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT
FOR EACH OWNER. >> THE ONLY REASON I ASKED THAT YOU COULD MAYBE KIND OF LET EVERYBODY ELSE KNOW THAT, THAT MIGHT NOT AWARE, WE HAVE A CITY COUNCIL WHERE HALF THE COUNCIL IS UP -- OR THE PUBLIC CHOOSES HALF THE COUNCIL EVERY TWO YEARS AND THAT KIND OF CREATES A SITUATION WHERE IF THE CURRENT COUNCIL IS JUST VOTING TO UNDO WHAT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL DID, WE CAN GET STUCK IN THIS PATTERN OF NOT MOVING FORWARD AND NOT MAKING PROGRESS. I WANT TO BE VERY HONEST, EMINENT DOMAIN IS A VERY POWERFUL AND POTENTIALLY DIVISIVE ISSUE AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT.
>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REY REYNOLDS.
>> COUNCILPERSON: I WAS WONDERING, CAN WE GET A COPY OF
THE SLIDES OR ARE THEY ONLINE? >> YES.
>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON ALLEN
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: SO OUT OF THE ENTIRE 15, YOU HAVE SOME THAT ARE JUST EASEMENTS, RIGHT? AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY ACQUIRING LAND.
WHAT'S THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT EACH PERSON WILL LOSE?
>> IT IS VERY SMALL. LITTLE SLIVERS.
, LIKE THE 38, THAT HAS A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
MOST ARE BARELY TOUCHING A CORNER OF THEIR PROPERTY.
IN THEIR BACKYARDS THEY MIGHT HAVE A FENCE OR DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THAT AREA. BUT IT IS FAIRLY SMALL PART FOR A GOOD MAJORITY OF THESE PARCELS.
>> COUNCILPERSON: SO IF IT IS A BACKYARD AND IT LOSES A FENCE, THAT WILL BE PUT INTO THE MONEY THAT -- THEY WILL GET MONEY FOR
THAT FENCE OR THEY WILL GET -- >> CORRECT, WHEN WE DO APPRAISE APPRAISAL. THAT IS PART OF THE APPRAISAL AND THE OFFER THAT IS MADE. IF THEY HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT, LANDSCAPING, TREES, OR A FENCE, THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
>> MAYOR: KOUCOUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION, IF YOU WILL -- AND I KNOW IT IS A LOT, IF YOU WILL DIG INTO THE ATTACHMENTS THAT COME ALONG WITH THE ORDINANCE, IT ACTUALLY SHOWS EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY IN THERE AND HOW MUCH YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT WOULD BE COMING FROM THAT. IT IS ALSO VERY DETAILED TO SHOW US WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, WHETHER IT IS THE SLOPE EASEMENT, DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO TAKE TIME AND GO IN THERE AND REVIEW EACH OF THOSE. THEN YOU CAN READ BEFORE IT AND IT TELLS YOU IF IT IS FEE SIMPLE, PERMANENT EASE MANY,MEN, SLOPE EASEMENT OR CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.
>> MAYOR: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ORDINANCE 107 AND MR. COWAN, SEEING NONE.
COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
[00:20:08]
ORDINANCE 108-2021-22, FIRST READING AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S PURCHASE OF THE SALLEE PROPERTY WITH AN AWARD OF ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF DIXON PARK.THIS IS WHERE WE ARE EXPANDING DIXON PARK AND THE LAND WE ARE GETTING WAS APPRAISED FOR $20,000.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE PURCHASING THE LAND FOR.
>> MAYOR: ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING 108, ORDINANCE 108? SEEING NUN, CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN.
>> COUNCILPERSON: THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT, MAYOR.
MR. TYNDALL, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COME FORWARD, AND WE WILL GO
[1) PLANNING COMMISSION]
BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT.FIRST ITEM, ORDINANCE 101-2021-22.
MR. TYNDALL. >> THANK YOU, I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE. I COULDN'T GET HERE IN TIME.
ORDINANCE 101, MR. LIGON HAON HS ASKED TO WITHDRAW THAT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY SLIDES ON 101
THIS WEEK. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TYNDALL? SEEING NONE, READY FOR ITEM 2, ORDINANCE 93. I'M SORRY, ORDINANCE 109,
MR. TYNDALL. >> THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF RAYMOND SHE SEPPARD. THIS IS .24 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED R3 AND REQUESTING TO GO TO R6.
IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R6.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS GRACEY AVENUE AND WOODLAND STREET.
CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 6. IT IS A VACANT LOT AND THE OWNER PLANS TO CREATE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTION.
THIS IS AN AREA NEAR CROSSLAND AVENUE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF R6 IN THE GENERIC NEIGHBORHOOD SCATTERED AROUND AS YOU CAN SEE. A LOT OF THE SMALLER R3 PARCELS ARE GETTING GROUPED ONE OR TWO AT A TIME AND SPLIT INTO JUST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE CURRENT LOT COULD HANDLE ONE HOME. THIS IS LIKELY BE DIVIDED INTO TWO HOMES IN THE R6 ZONING. HERE'S GRACEY AVENUE.
SIMILAR HOMES ON THE STREET. HERE'S THE VACANT LOT.
AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND PROPERTY IS TO YOUR RIGHT.
THIS IS LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS, STREET DEPARTMENT NOTED SIDEWALKS WOULD BE REQUIRED ON GRACEY AVENUE AND SCHOOL CAPACITY COMMENTS. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES PUT THIS AT TWO UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R6 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE AND NO ADVERSE ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND SIDEWALKS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. HI TYNDALL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ORDINANCE 109, SEEING NONE, ITEM NO. 3, ORDINANCE 110, MR. TYNDALL.
>> THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF FRANK WOODARD.
WE DEFERRED THAT ONE. APOLOGIES.
Z21-22, APPLICATION OF JOE WINN JUNIOR.
8.48 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED R1A. REQUESTING TO GO TO C5 IN THE FRONT AND R4 IN THE REAR. IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION. THE PROPERTY FRONTS TINY TOWN ROAD, 440 FEET WEST OF THE TOWER DRIVE INTERSECTION.
CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 8. THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL HOME ON THE SITE AND IT IS SEMI WOODED AND THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS, QUOTE, BEST USE OF LAND. C5 ACROSS THE STREET AND R4 ADJACENT TO IT. THERE'S THE HOME IN QUESTION.
A LOT OF YOU HAVE PROBABLY DRIVEN PAST THIS MANY TIMES.
THAT'S TOWER DRIVE ADJACENT TO IT.
LOOKING BACK FROM THE NEAREST CROSS-SECTION OR INTERSECTION
[00:25:01]
ACROSS THE STREET. ANOTHER VIEW OF THE HOME.DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, THE GAS AND WATER DEPARTMENT SAID IT WILL REQUIRE OFF SITE SEWER UPGRADE.
TRAFFIC ASSES ASSESSMENT WAS SUD AND ACCEPTED WITH MINIMAL IMPACTS. THE DRIVEWAY MUST BE ALIGNED WITH THE GAS STATION DRIVEWAY ACROSS THE STREET AND SIDEWALKS ALONG ON TINY TOWN ROAD. NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS AND COMMENTS FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM REGARDING CAPACITY AT THE THREE SCHOOLS LISTED. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 72 UNITS PLUS THE COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.
C5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL DISTRICT IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING CLASSIFICATION ALONG TINY TOWN ROAD.
IN CHARACTER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF TINY TOWN ROAD. THE PLNG COMMISSION ALSO PLANNIN
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >> IS THERE A PLAN TO CONNECT THE C5 ON THE BACK SIDE. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET IN AND
OUT OF THAT PROPERTY? >> RIGHT NOW, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS STILL A HOME. I WILL GO BACK TO THE MAP.
ZONED R1A. THE EASTERLY TELLS THE PICTURE AS WELL. SO THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKELY PUT A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN TWO COMMERCIAL PADS BACK TO THE R4 IN THE REAR AND WOULD I AND I WOULDEXPECT SOMETHING SIMO TOWER DRIVE OR LARGER UNIT BUILDINGS BACK THERE.
THEY WILL HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT LINES UP WITH THE GAS STATION'S DRIVEWAY ACROSS THE STREET. YOU CAN JUST SEE IT IN THERE, WHICH SPLITS THIS IN HALF. THIS WAS DEFERRED A MONTH SO THEY COULD ADJUST LOT LINES AND ZONING LINES TO MATCH THE STREET DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST THERE. BUT THERE'S NO PLAN TO HAVE A STREET THAT PARALLELS TINY TOWN ROAD, UNLESS THEY BRING IT IN AND WANT TO DO IT. THE TWO PARCELS NEXT TO THEM DON'T HAVE PLANS. ONE IS C5 AND THE OTHER IS NOT.
TOWER DRIVE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY STUB INTO THIS PROPERTY. IF IT DID, WE WOULD PROBABLY BE
HAVING A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. >> I JUST AM CONCERNED THAT EVERYBODY GETS A DRIVEWAY TO TINETINY TOWN AND WE MAKE IT LOK LIKE WILMA AGAIN. NOT EVEN ASKING TO LEAVE THE
SPACE AS WE DEVELOP. >> IT WILL HAVE TO MEET THE ACCESS ORDINANCE AND PER THE TREATMENT DEPARTMENT'S
>> MAYOR: LET THE CHURCH SAY AMEN.
HE WAS JUMPING OUT OF HIS CHAIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE? SEEING NONE, READY TO FOR ITEM 4, ORDINANCE 111. MR. TYNDALL.
>> THTION PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z22-2022.
APPLICATION OF LUIS, ALICEA, KOLT MILAM, AGENT, FOR THE PROPERTY FRONTS EASTLAND DRIVE NORTH OF THE CUMBERLAND DRIVE AND EASTLAND DRIVE INTERSECTION, CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 6. WOODED TRACT WITH VARYING TOPOGRAPHY AND SUBSTANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF USE.
ONE LITTLE POCKET OF R6 A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY.
HERE'S THE STREET IN QUESTION. PROPERTY ON THIS PICTURE IS UP AND ON THE RIGHT. THIS IS LOOKING BACK TOWARD CUMBERLAND AND NOT TOWARD IT. THERE'S THE PROPERTY IN QUE QUESTION. THE HOUSE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY, LOOKING UP THE HILL, AND LOOKING BACK FROM -- THIS IS FROM CUMBERLAND BUT LOOKING BACK TOWARD THE PRO PROPERTY. STAFF DEPARTMENTS COMMENTS, GAS AND WATER DEPARTMENT SAID THERE IS NO SEWER AVAILABLE.
I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IS ON SEPTIC.
THE STREET DEPARTMENT SAID WIDENING EASTLAND DRIVE ALONG THE FRONTAGE, SIDEWALKS WOULD BE REQUIRED PER R6 AND NO OTHER COMMENTS LISTED FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD BE 7. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IF THIS SITE HAS SEWER, YOU COULD GET THREE OR POSSIBLY FOUR UNITS UNDER ITS POSSIBLE ZONING OF R2.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST APPEARS TO BE INSUBSEQ INSUBSEQ INCONSISTE.
THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR R2 ZONING.
[00:30:03]
THE ZONING DOES NOT APPEAR TO BS SUBSTANDARD.DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE WIDENING OF THE ROAD AND INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS UNDER ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLARKSVILLE STREET DEPARTMENT. I WILL ALSO SAY DEVELOPMENT UNDER R2 MAY ALSO REQUIRE ROAD WIDENING, TO BE FAIR FOR THIS ZONING CASE. PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO
RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL ON THIS. >> MAYOR: ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 11. S111.
SEEING NONE. ITEM NO. 5, ORDINANCE 112,
MR. TYNDALL, PLEASE. >> THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z23-2022, APPLICATION OF ROBERT CLARK AND TODD HARVEY.
THIS IS 21.89 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED C3 AND PROPOSED TO GO TO C5. IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE C5.
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF MERCHANTS BOULEVARD.
IT IS A VACANT CLEARED LOT. THE STATEMENT IS NEED THE PROPERTY REZONED IN ORDER TO HAVE MORE VARIETY OF USES FOR THE PROPERTY. IT DOES HAVE TWO HISTORICAL CASES, BOTH SUBDIVISIONS. THIS HAS BEEN ZONED C3 WELL ABOVE 2010. THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUT TOGETHER A DOCUMENT OUTLINING THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN C3 AND C5. C3 IS NOT A ZONE WE HAVE EVER ACTUALLY HAD REQUESTED. IT IS A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE. A LOT OF RETAIL, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL. BUT IT TAKES OUT A LOT OF THE AUTO ORIENTED THENS LIKE AUTO REPAIR, AUTO BODY, GAS STATIONS, CAR WASHES, SELF-STORAGE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
REALLY WHAT I THINK IS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CRO KROGER AND LOWE'S WAS DEVELOPED AS C3 SUBDIVISION, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT C3 COULD BE.
C3 IN THE LIGHTER BLUE, AND C5 AROUND IT.
THERE'S THE CURRENT END OF MERCHANTS BOULEVARD.
IT HAS A TEMPORARY TURN AROUND. WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION PLAT THAT DOES SHOW A STREET GOING THROUGH THIS PROPERTY.
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON WHAT THE FUTURE USE OF THIS IS. AGAIN, THEY STATED THAT THEY WANTED MORE USES AND WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO WORK WITH THEM BEFORE THEY SUBMIT A SITE PLAN TO IRON OUT ANY DIFFICULTIES GOING FORWARD. HERE'S THE CURRENT END.
THE PROPERTY IS JUST BEYOND THIS TREE LINE WHERE IT -- THE BORDER OF THIS PROPERTY. HERE IT IS FROM 101ST LOOKING BACK. IT IS RIGHT OVER THE BERM THERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE REQUEST FROM C3 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT TO C5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL DISTRICT WOULD INCREASE THE OPTIONS OF ADDITIONAL USES, MANY OF WHICH ARE MOTOR VEHICLE ORIENTED. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE. NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL, ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT ORDINANCE 112.
SEEING NONE, NO. 6, ORDINANCE 113, MR. TYNDALL.
>> PLNG COPLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION OF ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, SYD HEDRICK, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE THREE LOTS WITH A SLIGHT SLOPE.
THE APPLICANT STATEMENT, THE THREE LOTS ARE BORDERED ON THREE SIDES BY STREETS THUS CREATING TWO CORNER LOTS THAT AREN'T LARGE ENOUGH TO BUILD A HOUSE. A SMALLER MIDDLE LOT AND LARGER CORNER LOT, REDUCE SETBACKS PROVIDED BY R6 ZONING.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ONLY PLAN TO DO THREE MAYBE FOUR.
YOU CAN ALREADY DO THREE LOTS ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND AGAIN REQUEST FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TO MAKE A WISER USE OF THEIR LAND. AND THERE'S THE PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT THERE. LOOKING BACK UP THE SIDE STREET OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, SIDEWALKS WOULD BE REQUIRED. STREET DEPARTMENT SAID WIDEN
[00:35:06]
BOTH DUMIS DRIVE AND ELM HILL DRIVE.THE CAPACITIES OF THE THREE SCHOOLS LISTED.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 5 UNITS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HAS A MORE APPROPRIATE SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH CURRENT CORNER AND DEAD END STREET CONFIGURATION. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE WIDENING OF THE STREETS ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS UNDER REVIEW OF THE STREET DEPARTMENT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL, ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 113. SEEING NONE.
MR. TYNDALL, ORDINANCE 114. >> CASE Z25-2022, THE APPLICATION OF JASON SENSENEY. CURRENTLY ZONED C2 REQUESTING TO GO TO C5. IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE C5.
A ZONING CASE IN 2015 IS WHEN THIS ONE PIECE OF C5 WAS ZONED THAT WAY. PARCEL AT THE NORTH FRONTAGE OF PROVIDENCE BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF E STREET AND S OAK STREET.
IT IS A VACANT GRAVEL LOT USED FOR PARKING.
THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS TO COMPLY WITH WHAT IS ALREADY HERE AND EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS. THERE'S AN AUDIO STEREO SITE WHICH IS COMPLIANT WITH C2 ON THE LEFT.
THE OWNER OWNS THE CAR LOT TO THE RIGHT AND THEY WANT TO EXPAND INTO THE BUILDING ON THE LEFT.
THAT'S THE COMPLIANT C5 LOT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
AND ALSO HAVE SOME AREA IN THE BACK THEY WOULD LIKE TO FILL AND LEVEL OUT FOR SOME VEHICLE STORAGE.
BACK ON E STREET LOOKING TOWARD THE PROPERTY.
THERE IT IS AGAIN FROM E STREET. NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS SUBSEQUENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE REQUEST FOR C2 TO C5 REMOVES THE ABILITY TO HAVE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WHILE INCREASING THE OPTION FOR ADDITIONAL USES.
MANY OF WHICH ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MOTOR VEHICLE TRADE, ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE.
IT APPEARS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED WITH THIS REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL, ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING THIS PROPERTY IN NEW PROVIDENCE? READY FOR ITEM 8, ORDINANCE 115.
>> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z26-2022, THE APPLICATION OF CODE DCODY AND TAYLOR DAHL. R4 WITH THE H1 OVERLAY AND REQUESTING TO GO TO OP OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL KEEPING THE H1 OVERLAY. H1 OVERLAY MEANS IT IS HISTORICAL DISTRICT. H1 ON THE PROPERTY, THEY COMPLY WITH THE MADISON DESIGN STANDARDS GOING FORWARD.
I BELIEVE I HAVE A MAP OF THAT. PARCEL FRONTS MADISON STREET A CON ROY INTERSECTIONS. CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 6.
HEHISTORIC OVERLAY. THE PROPERTIES THAT FRONT MADISON STREET AND GREENWOOD, MOST IN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1924. REQUESTS OF THE APPLICANT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO USE IT AS A TITLE COMPANY AND LAW OFFICE. OTHER HOUSES IN THE AREA ARE ALLOWED AS OFFICES PREVIOUSLY IN R4 BUT NOT CURRENTLY.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO CLARIFY IF NEED.
HERE'S THE HOME IN QUESTION, THE RED BRICK HOME ABOUT MIDWAY DOWN MADISON STREET. INTERESTING FACT THAT WE LEARNED WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE HISTORIC COMMISSION TO REVIEW THIS, THIS HOME WAS BUILT BACKWARDS.
THE KITCHEN IS FACING THE STREET ON THIS DESIGN.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DID IT IN 1924, INTERESTING FACT ON THAT ONE. LOOKING BACK UP THE PROPERTY FROM MADISON STREET. A LOT OF YOU HAVE DRIVEN PAST THESE. THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. THIS IS ADJACENT.
THIS WOULD BE THE DRIVEWAY IN THERE.
THERE ARE SOME PARKING SPOTS. HALF THE PARKING SPOTS ON THE RIGHT GO WITH THE APARTMENTS IN THE BACK.
THE OTHER PARKING SPOTS ON THE LEFT BELONG TO THIS PROPERTY.
[00:40:02]
AND ANOTHER ADJACENT HOME TO THIS ONE.DEPARTMENTS DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.
THE STAFF DOES REMEDIES APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE PROPOSED OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC BLOCK FACE OF THE HOMES THAT EXIST ON MADISON STREET.
THE CONVERSION OF HISTORIC HOMES INTO OFFICES AND COMMERCIAL USES ERODES THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND PERMITS THE ENCROACHMENT OF USES THAT COULD DIMINISH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
FOCUS ON PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION. IT IS CURRENTLY R4.
THIS ENTIRE DISTRICT IS R4. THERE WAS A POLL TAKEN WELL BEFORE I GOT HERE, PROBABLY GOING ON TEN YEARS AGO, ASKING THE RESIDENTS THERE IF THEY WANTED TO GO BACK TO R1, R1A, GOOD AMOUNT OF THESE ACTUALLY DO HAVE MORE THAN ONE UNIT IN THEM.
MAYBE TWO OR THREE UNITS ALONG MADISON STREET.
THE DECISION AT THE TIME WAS THERE WAS TOO MUCH PUSHBACK AND WE DIDN'T REZONE IT. ALL LOTS OF RECORD, TO THE 20S AND 30S, THEY CAN YOU WILL BE COMPLIANT HOMES.
HOWEVER, AS WE KNOW, THEY COULD ALSO BE COMPLIANT WITH FUFUTUREDEVELOPMENT OF APARTMEN, CONVERTING EXISTING STRUCTURES OR ADDING ON TO THE DENSITY. ANY OF THIS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION ON THIS. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANY QUESTIONS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
>> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> YES, HI. I DID REACH OUT TO MR. LONG WHO IS THE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THIS HOME. WE DISCUSSED IT BACK AND FORTH.
HE DOES UNDERSTAND THAT ONLY THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE BUSINESS AND THE BACKPACKER BACK PARTCAN BE TURNED INTO APAN R4. HE SAID, THEY COULD DO IT NOW, SO THAT DOESN'T MATTER. HE INDICATED THAT OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY.
THERE HAS BEEN A SINGLE FAMILY FOR YEARS AND THE HOME IS IN NEED OF UPDATING. SO THEY SUPPORT CHANGING IT TO OFFICE RATHER THAN LEAVING IT AS A R4 AND HAVING IT BROKEN UP INTO APARTMENTS. SO I ALSO ASKED ONE RESIDENT, MR. WINNN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO KNOW WHO HE IS. AND IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME OPINION. THE LAW OFFICE WOULD MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORICAL HOME.
PARKING IS A QUESTION. BUT THEY WOULD RATHER SEE IT TURNED INTO A LAW OFFICE THAN INTO FOUR APARTMENTS.
SO TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON
STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. TYNDALL, I WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT VOTED IN FAVOR. IT SAYS ON HERE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AND HISTORIC BLOCK FACE OF HOMES THAT EXIST ALONG MADISON STREET. ALONG MADISON STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT CORRIDOR, DON'T WE HAVE SEVERAL CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES? THEY WENT THROUGH A PAINSTAKING PROCESS WITH THE BANK TO MAINTAIN HISTORICAL ASPECT OF IT AND CHANGED IT INTO A COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY.
THERE IS AN ACCOUNTING OFFICE. THERE'S A FEW OF THE HOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHANGED INTO COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES,
SO YOU HAVE THE FUNERAL HOME JUST ACROSS THE STREET AND DOWN THE BLOCK. THAT WAS PREDATES A LOT OF OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THIS AREA. THAT HAS BEEN A FUNERAL HOME FOR QUITE A WHILE AND GRANDFATHERED USE.
THERE IS A FINANCIAL OFFICE FIVE OR SIX HOMES DOWN.
THAT WAS DONE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2010, BEFORE THE ZONING CODE GOT REWRITTEN. IT IS CONSIDERED BY THE STREET DEPARTMENT A GRANDFATHERED USE AT THE TIME.
ANY ADDITIONS TO THIS PROPERTY, WHETHER THEY ARE STRUCTURAL OR PARKING WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COMMON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.
I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO LEAN TOWARD PARKING TOWARD THE SIDE OR REAR INSTEAD OF THE FRONT. THE FINANCIAL OFFICE DOES HAVE DOWN THE STREET, THE WHOLE FRONT IS PARKING.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT STARTS TO DETERIORATE THE COMMUNITY, NOT NECESSARILY THE USE, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL DAYTIME TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF A LAW OFFICE YOU MAYBE DON'T HAVE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IF THE PARKING COULD BE ACCOMMODATEND A WAY THAT DOESN'T REALLY BREAK UP THE WALKING NATURE OF THIS HISTORIC ZONE. THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK FOR AT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION. STILL ANOTHER STOP FOR THIS.
ZONING IS THE FIRST STEP. THEY HAVE TO BE BACK FOR THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
[00:45:04]
>> COUNCILPERSON: I, TOO, SPOKE WITH A RESIDENT THAT LIVES IN THE AREA THAT IS VERY INTERESTED IN THE HISTORICAL IMPACT.
FOR THEM, THEY ALSO, THEY DIDN'T TAKE ISSUE WITH IT ONE WAY OR THE ANOTHER, WHETHER IT PASSED OR FAILED.
FOR ME, PART OF MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID FROM MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBER, MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE INSIDE BY CONVERTING IT TO APARTMENTS VERSUS LEAVING IT THE WAY IT WAS.
SO THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON MARQUIS,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. SINCE STAFF DISAPPROVES BUT THE COMMISSION APPROVES, OUT OF YOU'RCURIOSITY WHAT WAS THE
DIFFERENCE IN VOTE. >> THE COMMISSION WAS UNANIMOUS.
>> WE HEARD ONE REASONING BEHIND IT, BUT WERE THERE OTHER REASONS
WHY THEY VOTED FOR APPROVAL? >> I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED THAT THOSE STATEMENTS WERE REIT REITERATED BY OTHERS.
>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> COUNCILPERSON: MR. TYNDALL, I WAS THERE WHEN WE VOTED FOR THIS. WE VOTED FOR THIS BECAUSE I DID STATE THAT MR. CHARLES TANNIN WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS BEING OFFICE SPACE FOR THE UPKEEP OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.
MY QUESTION WAS, IS THIS CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING.
>> TWO TESTS I OFTEN HAVE IN MY HEAD WHEN IT COMES TO SPOT ZONING, IS ARE YOU DOING THIS JUST FOR A SINGLE PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO FOR ANYONE ELSE AND ONLY FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE APPLICATION ANYWHERE ELSE? AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THE PLANNING STAFF'S CONCERN IS THAT THIS COULD BE JUST THE FIRST FOOT IN THE DOOR OF CONVERTING A LOT OF THIS OVER TO OFFICE, MEDICAL, DIFFERENT PRACTICES UP AND DOWN AND NOT BEING HOMES ANYMORE AS THEY ORIGINALLY WERE.
THIS HAPPENS IN A LOT OF TOWNS. NOT TO SAY THAT AN OFFICE OR TWO ON A BLOCK IS GOING TO DETERIORATE.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE EVERY HOME DO IT.
SO IF THE COUNCIL IS WILLING TO APPLY OP TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, THIS JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST.
IF YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO DO IT FOR THIS PROPERTY, I WOULD CALL
IT SPOT ZONING. >> COUNCILPERSON: CAN YOU GIVE ME -- COULD YOU PROVIDE US A COPY OF INFORMATION DATA ON SPOT ZONING. COULD YOU PROVIDE A LOG, SEND THAT TO ME. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.
>> SPOT ZONING IS OFTEN LITIGATED.
THERE IS NOT A HARD BLACK AND WHITE DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING.
YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU SEE IT. I WILL TRY TO WRITE SOMETHING UP
-- >> THERE IS NOT A LAW ON IT?
>> THERE IS NOT A LAW THAT SAYS SPOT ZONING IS ILLEGAL AND THIS IS WHAT SPOT ZONING IS. IT SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL BUT IT IS A CASE BY CASE BUS BASIS GETS ADJUDICATED.
>> SEND ME WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY ON IT.
>> I WILL WORK WITH THE LEGAL TEAM.
>> MAYOR: ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION? NOW READY FOR ITEM NO. 9, ORDINANCE 116.
PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z27-2022, SOUTHERN HIRE TEENAGE LLC, JONATHAN ROSS IS THE AGENT. 1.46 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED 01 REQUESTING TO GO TO R6. NORTHWEST CORNER OF E STREET AND OAK STREET, AROUND THE CORNER FROM WHERE WE WERE.
CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 4. WOODED TRACT THAT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CLEARED AND THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOTS IN CLARKSVILLE.
OP ZONED THERE MANY YEARS AGO WITH THE INTENT TO BE A CHILD CARE CENTER BUT THAT DIDN'T COME TO FRUITION.
THE ENTRANCE TO BURNS GARDEN ON YOUR LEFT, E STREET ON THE RIGHT AND THE PROPERTY BEING CLEANED. LOOKING BACK FROM THE SCHOOL PARKING LOT. THEN LOOKING FROM E STREET TOWARD THE SCHOOL, YOU CAN SEE THE EQUIPMENT IN THERE OPERATING. THIS IS, I BELIEVE, OAK STREET LOOKING BACK TOWARD E STREET, PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT.
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, SIDEWALK WOULD BE REQUIRED ALONG THE FRONTAGE PER THE R6 REQUIREMENTS.
SO NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES COULD PUT THIS AT 13 UNITS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. PROPOSED R6 DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL
[00:50:01]
SERVE THE SITE SUCH AS MASS TRANSIT AND RETAIL.NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED RELATIVE TO THIS REQUEST AND INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS WILL BE UNDER THE REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE STREET DEPARTMENT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
>> MAYOR: ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE 116.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> COUNCILPERSON: THIS PERTAINS TO WHEN YOU SAY IT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER, WHEN WE DON'T SEE ANY R6 UP THERE, R3 AND R2, R4.
NO R6. SO HOW DO YOU SUGGEST THAT.
IF YOU ARE DRIVING OR WALKING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS OR AN AREA OF TOWN, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ZONING IS UNDERNEATH. YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS NOW.
HOMES ARE OLDER AND SMALLER. SOME OF OUR FIRST SUBURBS AND FIRST AFFORDABLE STARTER HOMES WERE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY ARE ON THE SMALLER SIDE WHICH R6 IS OUR SMALLER HOUSES.
THOUGH THEY ARE TALLER AND CLOSER TOGETHER, STILL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND THERE'S PLENTY OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN THE AREA. COMPARABLE IN NATURE.
NO ONE IS BUILDING HOMES LIKE YOU HAVE IN NEW PROVIDENCE BACK IN THE 30S AND 40S, SOME ARE STILL THERE.
THIS IS AS COMPARABLE IN TODAY'S STANDARDS AS WE CAN BE.
>> COUNCILPERSON: I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT R6 IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH IN AREA.
I KNOW YOU SAY SMALL HOMES BUT LOOKING AT THOSE HOMES, COUNT SAY THAT BASED ON WHAT YOU SEE. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DIMENSIONS OF THE HOMES. THE SIZE OF THE HOMES.
R6 HOMES ARE VERY SMALL AND WE KNOW THAT.
AND IF YOU ARE STACKING HOMES THERE, I JUST DON'T THINK IT FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE DURING THAT TIME YOU CAN HAVE A AMENITIES BT WITH R6 YOU CANNOT.
I DON'T SEE HOW IT FITS THE CHARACTER.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON ALLEN,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: SO I KNOW LAST MONTH WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE R6 HOMES AND SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY BROUGHT IN SOME REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT A R6 HOME COULD LOOK LIKE. I KNOW THIS AREA OVER THERE PRETTY WELL. WHEN R6 HOME, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU ARE BUILDING 900 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
SOME OF THE HOMES THAT THEY SHOWED US UP HERE WERE 16, 17, 1800 DREAD SQUARE FEET. BIG THAN HOMES IN THE '30S.
IT IS BUILT UP VERSUS BUILD OUT? >> THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT.
I DON'T KNOW ANY BUILDER BUILDING 1100 SQUARE FEET HOUSES
EITHER. >> SO IN COMPARABLE SIZE, THEY MIGHT BE SQUARE FOOT WISE BIGGER, IT IS A SMALLER LOT.
>> MAYOR: ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 116. COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
>> COUNCILPERSON: WE MUST REMEMBER, R6 YOU CANNOT HAVE AMENITIES. THESE HOMES THAT ARE THERE NOW, YOU CAN. SO WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
IT IS NOT ONLY THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH R6 THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH WHAT IS ALREADY THERE.
SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE, NOT JUST WHAT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE IS. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT DOES R6 ENTAIL. WE KNOW THERE ARE, FOR ALL COMMUNITIES, THERE IS A PROPER BUS ROUTE.
I MEAN, BUS ROUTES EVERYWHERE. IN ALL COMMUNITIES, JUST ABOUT. WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT R6 ENTAILS, NOT JUST THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE.
MORE TO IT THAN THAT. THANK YOU.
>> MARRY WOULD LIKE TO RESPONDMO RESPOND TO THAT.
NEXT MONTH WE WILL BE PUTTING [INAUDIBLE] HOUSES BACK INTO R6.
WE WILL BE PUTTING A POOL, BACK IN.
THE CODE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
WE WILL BE BRINGING SOME OTHER ORDINANCES BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE PACKAGE TO PUT THAT BACK THERE ON THE USE TABLE.
>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THAT'S GOOD THAT YOU HAVE LISTENED TO HEAR WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO ALLOW FAMILIES TO HAVE AMENITIES, WITH CHILDREN, FAMILY HOME, YOU ACCOMMODATE FOR THE CHILDREN AS WELL, NOT JUST PUTTING IN A BOX.
THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS. NOT DISRESPECTING THE THING.
MAKE SURE THAT WE ACCOMMODATING PEOPLE, WE ARE REALLY ACCOMMODATING THEM AND NOT JUST BUILDING FOR THE MONEY.
[00:55:04]
GENTRIFICATION IS TAKING OVER. WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THINGS FOR THE PEOPLE NOT JUST BECAUSE THE BUILDER WANTS TO MAKE MONEY.THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
>> COUNCILPERSON: EVERYBODY UNDER THE OLD R6, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD POOLS AND PLAYHOUSES.
>> IT WILL REPLACE THE R6. IF THEY APPLIED FOR IT, THEY CAN
COME BACK IN AND GET THAT. >> MAYOR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE 116, SEEING NONE OF T.
WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 10, ORDINANCE 117.
>> APPLICATION OF ROY MILLER, MARK HOLLEMAN IS THE AGENT.
CURRENTLY ZONED R1, REQUESTING TO GO TO R5.
THIS IS PART OF THE RECENT ANNEXATION YOU JUST SAW.
ANNEXATION DOES NOT KICK IN UNTIL MAY 3RD.
HOWEVER, THIS PARCEL WAS IN THE CITY LIMITS.
THAT'S WHY WE CAN ACT ON THIS PIECE OF THE PARCEL.
R1 TO R5, NOT AN EXTENSION. PORTION OF THE TRACT IS AHSLAND CITY ROAD, GLENNSTONE BOULEVARD, CITY COUNCIL WARD 7.
ON THIS MAP, THE BYPASS IS JUST TO THE NORTHWEST, JUST OUTSIDE THIS PICTURE. IT IS A GRASS FIELD WITH A COUPLE OF TREE LINES. APPLICANT STATEMENT IS TO BUILD OWNER OCCUPIED TOWNHOMES IN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION TO OFFER A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT HE MEANS BY THE SUBDIVISION, REMAINING PORTION ZONED R1 WHICH WENT THROUGH THE ANNEXATION WILL BE BROUGHT INTO THE SUBDIVISION. THE FRONT WILL BE TOWNHOMES.
THE WEST TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE REAR.
HERE'S THE PROPERTY, HIGHWAY 12 APPROACHING IT.
FROM THE COUNTY GOING BACK TO THE CITY.
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.
GLENNSTONE BOULEVARD LOOKING BACK UP AT THE PROPERTY.
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, THERE'S NO SEWER AVAILABLE SO IT WOULD REQUIRE A SEWER EXTENSION.
TRAFFIC ASSESS ASSESSMENT WAS . THEY DID CONSIDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 110 ACRES, THE STUDY WAS ACCEPTABLE WITH MINIMAL IMPACTS. IMPROVEMENTS TO AHSLAND CITY ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN THEY BRING IN THE SUBDIVISION FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY. NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DID ASK HOW MANY EXITS AND ENTRANCES.
IT LOOKS LIKE R5 BUT PART OF THE LARGER SUBDIVISION.
THERE WILL BE A MAIN PUBLIC ROAD, WE WILL SAY FLEW THE THROF THIS WITH THE TOWNHOUSES BRA BRANCHING OFF AND THE HOUSING IN THE BACK. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES FOR JUST THE R5 REQUEST WOULD BE 74 UNITS.
HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LOSS OF LAND FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS AROUND THERE.
SO POTENTIALLY A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R5 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND PROPERTIES. THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN STATES IT IS ENCOURAGED TO MAKE A MIXTURE OF DESIRED HOUSING TYPES. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
APPROVAL. >> MAYOR: ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 117? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE, MR. TYNDALL.
>> I BELIEVE WE ARE DONE. >> MAYOR: OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE BEEN OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. NOW READY FOR THE GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE. CHAIRPERSON REDD, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED. >> WE WILL HAVE A FULL REPORT
>> NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY, CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN.
>> WE WILL HAVE A FULL REPORT NEXT THURSDAY.
[9) NEW BUSINESS]
>> AND PARKS AND RECREATION, CHAIRPERSON HOLLEMAN.
>> I WILL HAVE A FULL REPORT NEXT WEEK.
>> AND DEPARTMENT REPORT, PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
TRANSPORTATION, STREETS, AND GARAGE.
>> YES, MAYOR, WE WILL HAVE A FULL REPORT NEXT WEEK.
>> MAYOR: NEW BUSINESS, ORDINANCE ORDINANCE 118,
[01:00:12]
ORDINANCE 118-2021-22, FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM BILLY MACE D/B/A BILL'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, TO THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FOR THEPURPOSE OF A SEWER PUMP STATION. >> THE SIMPLE WORDS OF CITY PROPERTY, TRANSFERRED THAT OWNERSHIP WITH THE RECORDING OF THAT PLAT. WE FOUND OUT YEARS LATER, THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SO I CAN SAY THIS SUBDIVISION, THIS SEWER STATION IS 15 YEARS OLD.
SO WE HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING IT AND BASICALLY USING IT PROPERTY FOR 15 YEARS AND THE OWNER HAS BEEN PAYING TAXES ON THIS, WHATEVER THAT HAS BEEN. THIS IS JUST A CLEANUP TO TRANSFER THAT OWNERSHIP. THE OWNER IS NOT BEING TAXED ON THAT THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE 15 YEARS AGO.
>> ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 118? THANK YOU, MR. RIGINS. WE ARE NOW READY FOR MAYOR AND
[10) MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS]
COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, YOU SEE THE REPORT ON DEBT OBLIGATION, $42.5 MILLION.NO ACTION IS REQUIRED. LET ME GIVE YOU THE HIGHLIGHTS.
WE CLOSED ON THOSE BONDS AND APRIL 20TH, RECEIVED $50 MILLION BONDS ISSUED, FACE OF THE BONDS 42.5 MILLION.
PREMIUM OF 7.7 PREMIUM. OUR BONDS WILL PAY THE INVESTOR 5% TAX EXEMPT AND CLOSING COST IS A TREMENDOUS BARGAIN FOR US, $231,752. THAT'S IN YOUR IPAD PACKET.
ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH? >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I GOT A CONCERN FROM ONE OF MY C CONSTITUENTS ON GOLF COURSE LANE AND SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUILDING OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, WORRYING ABOUT THE ELDERS AND CHILDREN, AFRAID THEY MIGHT BE HIT WITH ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON. SO I TOLD HER -- SHE WANTED ME TO MAKE IT KNOWN AND I TOLD HER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE CAUTIONED, PAY ATTENTION TO SIGNS AND CROSS AT THE CROSSROADS AT THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND TO BE CAREFUL OUT THERE WITH ALL THE NEW CONSTRUCTION GOING ON WITH THE NEW APARTMENTS AND BUILDING GOING ON AROUND THE CITY.
I ASSURED HER THERE IS A SAFELY WAY TO CROSS THE STREET, USE THE LIGHTS AND USE THE SIGNALS AND BE CAREFUL AND BE CAUTIOUS.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. BRIAN TAYLOR WITH CDE FOR THE POWER BREAKFAST HE HOSTED YESTERDAY. I FOUND IT VERY INFORMATIVE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT AND I THANK YOU AND THE EMPLOYEES THAT PUT AN EFFORT TO HOST THAT EVENT.
I ALSO VERY MUCH ENJOYED THE TOUR OF THE BUILDING, THANK YOU
TO YOUR CREW. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: I FORGOT, MAYOR, THE ST STREET DEPARTMENT, THE KUDOS TO THEM, FOR MAKING THINGS BETTER TO LIVE IN THIS CITY.
TO ALL THE STAFF AND SUPERVISORS THAT ARE THERE, WE THANK YOU.
[11) PUBLIC COMMENTS]
>> MAYOR: WELL SAID. ANYONE ELSE.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF OUR CITY EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
I'M SORRY. YOU WOULD APPROACH, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. IT WON'T TAKE THAT LONG.
MY NAME IS CHRIS BOLEN, 411 RUSTIN LANE.
I CAME DOWN HERE TO SEE YA'LL BECAUSE I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING ON OUR STREET.
WHEN A NEW SUBDIVISION WAS PROPOSED ALMOST TWO CHRISTMASES AGO, I GUESS, LONGVIEW WITH 370 HOMES GOING TO BE BUILT IN IT, I WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TALKED TO THOSE FOLKS.
I SAID, THEY CAN BUILD HOUSES, THE STREET DEPARTMENT SAYS THE ROAD OKAY. SO WE HAVE 375 MORE GOING ON.
TALKING ABOUT MEMORIAL DRIVE EXTENSION.
I CALLED YOU MAYOR, LEFT A MESSAGE, NEVER HEARD BACK.
I CALLED MISS STREETMAN, A TEXT AND MESSAGE ON YOUR CELL PHONE.
NEVER HEARD BACK FROM ANYONE. NOW WE HEAR THAT ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS PROPERTY OVER THERE IS CONSIDERING SELLING IT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THEN WE KNOW THAT ANOTHER PERSON RIGHT BY RIDGE HAVEN IS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE GONE DOWN MEMORIAL DRIVE EXTENSION BETWEEN 4:30 AND 5.
30 IN THE AFTERNOON, TRYING TO GET ON THE CONNECTOR, BUT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT SOME DAYS AND IT IS FIXING TO GET 375 MORE CARS
[01:05:02]
WORSE THAN THAT. I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE A PLAN.I DON'T SEE PLANS. IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS WAY WITH NO SHOULDER. I WAS GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TRASH AND MISS SMITH, YOU MADE A POINT THAT THEY ARE PICKING UP THINGS. I APPRECIATE THAT AS A CITIZEN.
BUT YOU CAN'T PICK UP MUCH OUT THERE, YOU MIGHT GET HIT.
SO I THINK WE ARE FIXING TO MAKE A HUGE, HUGE MISTAKE.
IT IS ALMOST LIKE NOBODY CAN SAY NO.
NOBODY CAN SAY NO. IF THEY OWN THE LAND, THEY WANT TO DEVELOP SUBDIVISION, YA'LL WANT TO LET THEM.
WE CAN'T GET IN AND OUT OF THERE NOW.
SO I JUST WOULD APPRECIATE YA'LL THINKING OF US, TOO, THAT LIVE THERE AND PAY TAX AND WANT TO HAVE A NICE HOME THERE TO MAYBE SLOW DOWN SOME OF THIS STUFF. AT LEAST IF THEY WANT TO DO IT, LET'S DO THE INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT THEN.
LET'S DO IT THERE INSTEAD OF PUTTING ALL THE STUFF IN AND THEN IT IS LIKE TRENTON ROAD, NOWHERE TO GO.
NOTHING TO FIX, NO WAY TO DO ANYTHING.
I THINK WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND I APPRECIATE YOU CONSIDERING THAT WHEN THESE NEXT
THINGS COME UP AND THEY WILL. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, SIR, IF YOU WILL HANG ON A MINUTE, I WILL TALK TO YOU.
WE DO HAVE A PLAN AND I WILL SHARE IT WITH YOU.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE.
WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.