May 26, 2022 Executive Meeting

[1) PLANNING COMMISSION]

[00:00:05]

. >> GUNMAN, GOOD AFTERNOON, WELCOME TO THE MAY 26, 2022, EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE A COUPLE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS TO GO OVER FIRST ON OUR AGENDA.

MR. TYNDALL, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 1, ORDINANCE 1 122-2021-22.

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> I WILL TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN. PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS, AS YOU

HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. >> WE DON'T TAKE THAT

PERSONALLY. >> NO.

I WILL ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS. OKAY.

FIRST CASE TONIGHT, CASE NO. Z22, APPLICATION OF REDA HOME BUILDERS INCORPORATED. 10.18 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED R1, REQUESTING FOR R4. THAT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE R4 TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST. CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 4.

LOCATED AT THE TERM NEWS OF CAVE SPRINGS ROAD.

FORMERLY SEMI WOODED TRACT. SOME OF IT HAS BEEN CLEARED.

THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS, MAY REQUIRE SEWER UPGRADES, TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED, ACCEPTED AND SHOWS MINIMAL IMPACT TO CAVE SPRINGS ROAD.

TURN AROUND OR CONNECTIVITY WILL BE REQUIRED PER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN AND IF THIS PROPERTY IS BUILT UPON AT THE END OF CAVE SPRINGS. CRAVE CAVE SPRINGS ROAD WILL BE IMPROVED. THE PROPERTY IS JUST BEYOND WHERE THE ROAD ENDS IN THIS PICTURE.

THIS IS CIRCLE HILL DRIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.

TECHNICALLY HAS FRONTAGE ON HERE BUT THE PLI APPLICANT HAS INDICD THEY INTEND TO ACCESS THROUGH CAVE SPRINGS ROAD FROM THE PRIOR PICTURE. THE SIGN, LOOKING TOWARD CAVE SPRINGS ROAD. YOU CAN SEE THE DISTURBANCE THAT YOU SAW IN THAT FIRST PICTURE. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 122 UNITS BUT THAT IS LIKELY VERY HIGH DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT, WHEN ASKED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SAID AROUND 25 UN UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL.

THE PROPOSAL REQUEST IS INSINT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED R4 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT APPEARS TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY PATTERN ALONG THE PRIMARY ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE AND NO ADD VEERS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS

APPROVAL. >> OKAY, THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> DO YOU THINK THEY WILL TIE INTO THAT OTHER NARROW ROAD OR WHAT'S GOING TO STOP THEM ONCE THEY STOP BUILDING FROM DOING

THAT? >> NOTHING SAYS THEY HAVE TO AND NOTHING SAYS THEY CAN'T DO THAT. ALSO PROPOSAL TO GO TO THE MOBILE HOME ACROSS THE ROAD, THERE IS A POSSIBLE OF CONNECTING TO THAT AS WELL. IT IS A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS MULTIPLE WAYS. I DON'T SEE THEM EXTENDING THE CIRCLE HILL DRIVE. IT IS THE BETTER LOCATION TO GET INTO THAT PROPERTY DUE TO THE HILLSIDE THAT IT IS ON.

>> SO YOU STILL, THE DISAPPROVAL AT THE STAFF MEETING STILL WAS

-- >> IT WAS DISAPPROVAL BASED ON THE FACT THAT STAFF FELT THAT YOU DON'T OFTEN PUT YOUR HIGHEST DENSITY AT THE REAR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

PUT IT MORE TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS A VERY SHORT ROAD AND THAT WAS DEBATED A LOT.

DEPENDING ON THE FINAL AMOUNT OF UNITS, IT MAY ACTUALLY BE NEGLIGIBLE IF IT IS TRUE THAT THEY CAN ONLY GET 25 OR 30 UNITS

OUT OF THAT PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: SEEING NO ONE ELSE, ITEM 2, ORDINANCE 123-2022-22,

MR. TYNDALL. >> COMMISSION CASE Z30, AKSHAR PATEL, R1 REQUESTING TO BE TO C2 AND R4.

IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF EITHER OF THOSE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS.

[00:05:01]

THIS IS FAIRLY LEVEL. THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS TO ALLOW FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG WITH COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A RECENT C4 AND C2 REZONING TO THE EAST. ROSSVIEW HIGH SCHOOL, LEMERY , ELEMENTARYSCHOOL. THE AG AND R1 PROPERTIES.

HERE IT IS, THAT ROAD IS DANG NEAR COMPLETED AT THIS POINT.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY JUST PAST WHERE THE QUIKTRIP FINISHED BUILDING BETWEEN THAT AND THE SCHOOL ENTRANCE.

THERE IT IS. AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET.

THE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, THERE'S NO SEWER AVAILABLE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

TRAFFIC ASSESS MANY WAS ASSESSMS SUBMITTED.

LEVEL OF SERVICE WAS ACCEPTABLE. THE SCHOOL DRIVE IS PRIVATE.

THEY ARE ALLOWED ONE ACCESS. THERE WERE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM'S COMMENTS ON THE ROSS VIEW CAPACITIES. HISTORIC ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 122 UNITS, DEPENDING ON HOW THE C2 IS DEVELOPED, WHETHER IT IS COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE LAND USE MAP IDENTIFIES THIS AREA FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN ENCOURAGES A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. THE C2 ZONING PERMITS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERAL GOODS AND SERVICES WITH THE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL.

THE LAND USE PLAN EXPLAINS THAT MIXTURE IS ENCOURAGED.

AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SERVE THE SITE, NO ADD VEERS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED

APPROVAL. >> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS.

>> WILL THEY BE ABLE TO, OR IS THERE A PLAN THEY CAN CUT THROUGH THE C4 AND GET TO THE LIGHT?

GLRK. >> THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, DEVELOPED BY THE QUIKTRIP CORPORATION, HAS PRIVATE EASEMENT THAT DOES NOT TOUCH THIS PROPERTY.

SO THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO GET THROUGH THIS PROPERTY INTO THAT PROPERTY UNLESS THEY WORK WITH THAT PERSON I THINK QUIKTRIP IS

DONE WITH THEIR PROPERTY. >> COUNCILPERSON: THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE IN AND OUT.

THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE IN AND OUT.

OKAY. >> MAYOR: OKAY.

WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM 3, ORDINANCE 124-2021-22.

MR. TYNDALL. >> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z31-2022. THIS IS FIRST APPLICATION OF PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS THAT YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE. THIS IS AN APPLICATION OF SINGLETARY INVESTMENTS, BERT SINGLETARY AGENT.

NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

TWO LOTS LOCATED ON PROFESSIONAL PARK DRIVE AND STOWE COURT, CURRENTLY A GRASS FIELD. I WILL CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TABLETS FOR MORE DEPAILD DED PICTURES.

I WILL SHOW THEM ON THE SCREEN BUT YOU WILL SEE THEM BETTER ON THE TABLETS. THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS DESCRIBED ON THE PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN, A BUFFER BEYOND THE SURROUNDING MIXTURE OF LAND USES.

RECENTLY REZONED TO R4 LAST Y YEAR.

SO A PLANNED UN UNIT DEVELOPMENS A REQUEST BY AN APPLICANT COMES IN WITH A PLAN MADE BY AN ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, PLANNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THERE IS SEVERAL CRITERIA THEY HAVE TO MEET BEFORE THEY GOT TO THE POINT.

THEY WERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TWO MONTHS PRIOR RATHER THAN THE NORMAL MONTH AS WE WORKED THROUGH ISSUES FOR THE SUBMISSION. REMINDING SREMINDING CITY COUNCA PUD IS APPROVED, YOU ARE APPROVING A SITE PLAN.

ANY MAJOR CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN, THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE TO AMEND IT WITH YOUR APPROVAL. YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TURN THIS UP OR DOWN JUST LIKE ANY ZONING CASE ALONG THE SAME CRITERIA YOU MIGHT NORMALLY APPLY TO A ZONING CASE.

IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENTING 22 -- JUST UNDER 22 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS AN INCREASE FROM THE 16 UNITS PER ACRE PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT R4 ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY REDUCE THE BUILDING

[00:10:04]

PART OF THE PUD REQUIREMENT, WHY DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS.

HERE'S THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT.

PROPOSING THREE 3-STORY BUILDINGS, TWO WITH PARKING UNDERNEATH HALF OF THEM, ALSO A POOL, CLUBHOUSE AND OTHER AMENITIES SUCH AS A TRAIL AND OPEN SPACE AROUND IT.

THEY ARE MAINTAINING THE SAME BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AGAINST THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO THE SOUTH THAT YOU WOULD HAVE FROM A NORMAL R4 SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS SOME ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AROUND THE PROPERTY. THESE ARE SCHEMATIC VIEWS OF THE TOP OF THIS WILL BE THE CURRENT VIEW AND THEN THE BOTTOM IS A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK FROM THE DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. THIS IS LOOKING FROM PROFESSIONAL PARK DRIVE TO THE WEST.

THIS IS LOOKING BACK FROM THE HOUSES THAT YOU JUST SAW SO IT WOULD BE A VERY OPPOSITE ANGLE OF THAT SAME PICTURE.

THE THE NEXT ONE IS STOWE COURT, THAT SIDE, BACK TO THE EAST.

A VACANT PLOT PROPERTY ON THE C, NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION.

THIS IS ON THAT PROPERTY BACK TOWARD THE PROJECT.

THIS LOOKS FROM THE CORNER OF PROFESSIONAL PARK AND THE SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE BACK AT THE PROPERTY.

AND TWO MORE RENDERINGS. THERE'S AN AERIAL RENDERING.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE SURE THAT THE FOLIAGE SHOWN ON HER MATCHES THE POTENTIAL BUFFER FOR IT, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT ONE SHOWING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER, SO IT DOES MATCH UP NOW. THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT REQUEST BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION LAST MONTH.

IT WAS DEFERRED BY THE COMMISSIONERS ACTUALLY.

THEY WANTED TO KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING, BECAUSE THERE IS AN ELEVATION CHANGE BETWEEN THE SUBDIVISION AND THIS PROPERTY. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU PUT ON THIS PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY STARTING EIGHT FEET HIGHER THAN THE BACKYARDS BEHIND THEM.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF LINES HERE.

YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE, PROPERTY LINE, PER R4 REGULATIONS, YOU COULD GET AS CLOSE AS 25 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH IS THAT FIRST LINE WHERE THEY HAVE THE DRIVEWAY. THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE ABOUT 75 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE AND 110 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. SO IT IS ACTUALLY SET BACK FARTHER THAN R4 REQUIREMENT WOULD.

FRINGES,FOR INSTANCE, YOU CAN BS HEIGHT OF A BUILDING BUT NOT SEE THIS DENSITY, IT COULD BE 25 FEET OFF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. WE WILL STAY HERE ON THE SITE PLAN. IN YOUR APPLICATION IS A SEPARATE PUD REPORT. I WON'T GO OVER ALL DETAILS.

YOU CAN READ THAT. THE SUMMARY IS THAT THE STAFF FEELS THE PUD MEETS THE POTENTIAL HIGHER QUALITY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS PER THE ORDINANCE AND EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING R4 IN TERMS OF AMENITIES AND SETBACK. THE PROPOSED PUD PLAN INCREASES TO 58 FEET AT NARROWEST PORTION OF THE SETBACK FROM THE STRUCTURE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS SEEN IN THE CROSS-SECTION.

THAT IS 58 FEET BETWEEN BUILDING AND THE SETBACK LINE IN THAT PICTURE, I MISSPOKE. THE PROPOSED PUD INCLUDES WALKING TRAILS AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING BUFFERS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USES, SIDEWALKS ALONG THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. AND OTHER PROPOSED AMENITIES EV STATIONS AND INDOOR PARKING GARAGES AND STORAGE.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL.

COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, DOES THE PUD REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE?

>> MINIMUM 15%. >> SO THIS BARELY HITS THE 15%, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A LOT OF GREEN SPACE THERE TO ME.

>> RIGHT. ONE OF THE PROVISIONS WE HAVE, WE NEED TO PUT IN THE REPORT, IF YOU ARE WITHIN QUARTER MILE WALK OF A PARK, THIS SHOULD BE WITHIN QUARTER MILE, YOU GET TO DROP IT

TO 10%. >> COUNCILPERSON: I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING THAT.

THIS IS JUST LIKE -- THERE'S NOT MUCH GREEN SPACE.

I DON'T SEE A LOT OF AMENITIES HERE IN A PUD, I GET TO PUT MORE

[00:15:03]

>> THAT IS CORRECT. OUT OF THE FOUR ACRES OF THE

PROPERTY. >> AND IT IS NOT IN ONE PLACE.

NO PLACE FOR ME TO TAKE MY CHILD OUT AND PLAY KICK BALL.

I JUST DON'T SEE THIS -- WHAT -- I DON'T SEE WHAT WE ARE GETTING.

THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMETHING FOR THE COMMUNITY WHEN WE DO THESE PUDS. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT SEEING IT.

AM I MISSING SOMETHING? >> THAT'S COMPLETELY WITHIN YOUR

REASONING. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ANY TIME WE PASS A ZONING, WE CAN'T PUT STIPULATIONS ON IT BECAUSE THAT'S ILLEGAL. SO IF THEY BRING US A PUD, ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE SAYING, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I AM GOING TO DO WITH IT AND WE WILL WRITE IT IN STONE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. YOU CAN'T FURTHER NEGOTIATE IT AT THIS POINT. THAT'S WITH THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT BEFORE IT GETS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

BUT, YES, YOU GET TO BASICALLY ACCEPT OR REJECT WHAT YOU SEE TODAY. IF YOU ACCEPT IT, THEY HAVE TO

BUILD WHAT YOU SEE TODAY. >> COUNCILPERSON: I UNDERSTAND THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S COMMENTS. I HAVE ENCOURAGED PUD BECAUSE WE GET TO SEE SOMETHING. I ENCOURAGE BUILDERS, THEY SHOULD SHOW US PLANS BECAUSE THAT'S HELPFUL.

EVEN WHEN THEY SHOW US PLANS, ONCE WE ZONE IT THEY CAN DO WHAT WE WANT. BUT THE PUD CHANGES THAT, ONCE WE CHANGE THE PLAN, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

STREETMAN. >> COUNCILPERSON: IT WAS JUST THREE MONTHS AGO, THAT WE ZONED THIS AS R4.

>> END OF 2021. >> COUNCILPERSON: TIME IS FLYING. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEY ARE ABLE TO GET NOW VERSUS WHAT WE HAD JUST

APPROVED THEM FOR? >> BASICALLY, IT GOES FROM A MAX OF 16 UNITS AN ACRE TO THEY ARE PROPOSING 21.8, JUST UNDER 22 UNITS AN ACRE. SO AN INCREASE OF SIX UNITS AN ACRE OVER THE FOUR AND A HALF ACRES.

COMES OUT TO 36. >> COUNCILPERSON: SO THEY GET QUITE A FEW MORE UNITS OUT OF IT.

>> AS THE DEVELOPER INDICATED, IT ALLOWS THE THIRD FLOOR ON THE

BUILDINGS TO BE BUILT. >> COUNCILPERSON: YOU CAN BUILD A THIRD FLOOR CURRENTLY, THOUGH, CORRECT IN.

>> YES. >> COUNCILPERSON: EVEN AS R4.

>> YES. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SHAKEENAB, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS.

IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE BEST ONES.

>> MAYOR: REAR READY FOR ITEM 4, ORDINANCE 125.

>> PLNG COMMISSION CASE Z32-2022, THE APPLICATION OF WILLIAM CLAYTON. 1.19 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED C2, REQUESTING TO GO TO C5. THE PROPERTY IS AT RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND BARKER STREET INTERSECTION.

CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 6. AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR FACILITY WITH ADDITIONAL STORE FRONTS. A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS WOODED, THE PARCEL IS AFFECTED BY THE FLOODPLAIN.

TO CHANGE TO C5 TO GET TO AUTO DEALERS LICENSE TO FIX, SELL, USE FOR PARTS. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING AS C5 BUSINESS FOR 20 YEARS.

THAT WAS THE PLINGT'S STAT STATEMENT:DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, THERE WAS ONLY COMMENT MADE WAS THAT THE ENTIRE PARCEL IS WITHIN SOME PORTION OF THE FLOODPLAIN, AS IS A LOT OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE. YOU WILL NOTICE IN THE PAST, IF YOU HAVE BEEN ON COUNCIL, THIS, ESPECIALLY IN THE PREVIOUS GROUP THAT WAS HERE, OFTEN WHEN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

[00:20:04]

THE LONG-TERM VISION OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE IS A REDEVELOPING CORRIDOR. C5 IS HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL CORRIDOR DOESN'T MATCH WITH A REDEVELOPING AREA, ESPECIALLY IF YOU START INTRODUCING POTENTIALLY MORE WALKABILITY AND HOUSING IN THE AREA. THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I'M SURE YOU HAVE DRIVEN PAST IT MANY TIMES, ACROSS FROM THE OLD WATER WORKS BUILDING.

THE PROPERTY DOES OWN THE GREEN SPACE BEHIND IT.

AND TOWARD THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

THE STRUCTURE TO THE LEFT OF THIS IMAGE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ZONING, PRETTY MUCH TELEPHONE POLE BACK TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL.

RECENT ZONING UPDATES, PLAN AND EFFORTS HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON RIVERSIDE DRIVE CORRIDOR TO DEVELOP PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND ACCOMMODATE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES.

THE PROPOSED C5 ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS DETRIMENTAL TO THOSE EFFORTS AND NEGATIVITY AFFECT THE LONG-RANGE CAKE.

CORRIDOR. THE PRESENT C2 IS ASSUMED TO BE THE CORRECT ZONE UNLESS PROPOSED ZONING IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN OR THE PARCEL WAS INCORRECTLY ZONED IN THE FIRST PLACE OR MAJOR CHANGE OF ECONOMIC, PHYSICAL OR SOCIAL NATURE WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

THE EXISTING AUTO REPAIR FACILITY IS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE PROTECTED UNDER THE NONCONFORMING USE PROVISIONS AND PERMITTED TO OPERATE UNDER THOSE STANDARDS WITHOUT REZONING. WHAT THEY CAN CANNOT DO IS BUY AND SELL CARS THAT ARE NOT TIED TO THE AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS CASE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. SO YOU HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THAT.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON, ZACHARIAS, BEFORE WE GET TO YOU, IT SHOWS DISAPPROVAL ON STAFF AND COMMISSION.

>> I'M SORRY. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

ZACHARIAS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. TYNDALL, I'M LOOKING AT THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT TO PROPOSED USE.

TO GET OUGHT AUTO DEALERS LICENO FIX, SELL, USE FOR PARTS.

WITH A THAT BE A WRECKER SERVICE OR TOW-IN LOT.

>> I WOULD DEFER THAT TO THE CODE DEPARTMENT.

THAT PORTION OF THE APPLICANT STATEMENT GAVE US SOME PAUSE.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE -- MR. SMITH IS HERE, YOU SHOULDN'T BE USING CARS FOR PARTS AT A REPAIR FACILITY.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE PULLING PARTS. YOU SHOULD BE THERE REPAIRING

VEHICLES. >> COUNCILPERSON: BECAUSE THE DISTANCE A TOGETHER FACILITY NEEDS TO BE FROM RESIDENTIAL.

>> MAYOR: COCOUNCILPERSON MARQU. >> COUNCILPERSON: HOW LONG HAS THE C5 CLASSIFICATION BEEN IN USAGE HERE?

>> C5 HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

IN 2010, THE Z ZONING CODE FOR E CITY WENT THROUGH A REWRITE IN WHICH C2 REMOVED A LOT OF THE COMMERCIAL AUTO ORIENTED THINGS SUCH AS CAR DEALERS, WRECKER LOTS, OTHER KIND OF SERVICES, TIRE SERVICES FROM C2. HIS GARAGE EXISTED PRIORITY 2010. HE HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATING AND HAS CONTINUED TO OPERATE AS A CAR GARAGE.

HE NOW WANTS TO BE ABLE TO BUY AND SELL CARS OFF THAT PROPERTY WHICH IS A DEALER'S USE NOT AN AUTOMOBILE REPAIR USE.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING IS COMING IN.

>> OKAY, SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY HAVE EVER ATTEMPTED TO

ALSO REZONE THIS PROPERTY? >> YES.

THERE IS NO OTHER REZONING HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. >> COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ON THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING. YOU TOUCHED ON THAT JUST NOW.

KIND OF GRANDFATHERED. >> IN OUR CODE AS WELL AS IN THE STATE LAW, IF A MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY CHANGES A ZONING RULE OR SOME OTHER CODE THAT AFFECTS LAND USE, AT ANY POINT, I'M ALREADY OPERATING AN ICE CREAM SHOP IN THE ZONE, THEN YOU CHANGE MY ZONING TO SOMETHING ELSE OR YOU CHANGE THAT ZONE THAT SAYS NO LONGER CAN ICE CREAM SHOPS GO HERE, I CAN ALWAYS STILL OPERATE AN ICE CREAM SHOP AS LONG AS I DON'T DISCONTINUE THAT USE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

THIS COMES UP QUITE A BIT AROUND THE CITY.

THE ZONING IS WHERE YOU WANT THE FFUTURE USE B TO GO BUT WE DON'T

[00:25:03]

PROPERTIES. >> COUNCILPERSON: AND FOR THE REASONING FOR THIS DISAPPROVAL, IS IT THE BOOM THAT IS HAPPENING, WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS HOUR FOR, I GUESS, TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION INSTEAD OF WHERE IT USED TO BE?

I GUESS. >> THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN PLANS TO REVITALIZE RIVERSIDE DRIVE. A RIVER PLAN IN 2030 PLAN.

ALSO, THE EDC IS INTRODUCING SOME NEW TIF DISTRICTS HERE.

THIS IS A FEW BLOCKS NORTH AND SOUTH.

IN A NO MAN'S LAND BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TIF DISTRICTS.

WE ARE WANT TO ENCOURAGE WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH THE TIF DISTRICTS AND NOT HAMPER BY HAVING THIS AREA CHANGE.

THIS IS MORE OF A FUTURE VIEW. IT DOES HAMPER THE EXISTING USER FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPAND THAT USE TO CAR SALES.

THEY CAN STILL DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING ON THEIR PROPERTY.

>> THANK YOU. >> NOW ITEM NO. 5, ORDINANCE

126-2021-22. >> APPLICATION OF HUNTER WINN AND JAMIE WALLACE, REQUESTING TO GO TO R6, IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF R6. IT IS ON GREENWOOD AVENUE, WOODARD STREET CONNECTION, CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 6, CURRENTLY A VACANT GRASS AND ASPHALT TRACT. THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE A STATEMENT. THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE CENTER STONE PROPERTY. SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THAT.

IT ACTUALLY INCLUDES A LIVER OF THA SLIVEROF THAT PIECE AND R3 .

PROPERTY ON THE LEFT, ADJACENT TO THESE PILES OF STONE.

THERE'S THE PROPERTY IN QUE QUESTION.

IT IS PROPERTY TO THE LEFT, CENTER STONE IS TO THE RIGHT.

THEN THE HOMES ACROSS THE ST STREET.

NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

HISTORICAL ESTIMATES PUT THIS AT FOUR UNITS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE PROPOSED R6 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

>> MAYOR: ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 126. SEEING NONE -- I'M SORRY, COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: YES, SORRY FOR BEING LATE.

OKAY, THIS IS GOING FROM R4, AM I CORRECT, TO R6.

>> IF YOU ZOOM IN, THE BIGGER PIECE OF THE PROPERTY HERE IS R3 AND IT CAN ALREADY HOLD A TRI-PLEX.

THEY ARE ONE LITTLE PIECE BUYING FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT'S R4. SO IT IS R3 AND R4 TO R6 FOR THE

WHOLE THING. >> FOR THE WHOLE AREA.

AND WHAT DO NE THEY PLAN TO BU? >> R6 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THREE

OR FOUR OF THEM. >> HAVE YOU MADE ANY CONSIDERATIONS IN MAKING SURE R6 HAS THE ACCESSORIES THAT IT

NEEDS? >> WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A

LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE AGENDA. >> I JUST WANT TO KNOW.

I MIGHT HAVE TO LEAVE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE,

HAVE YOU DONE THAT? >> YES, WE ARE BRINGING AN ORDINANCE IN TODAY, LAST PLANNING ORDINANCE ON THE AGENDA, TO MODIFY R6 TO INCLUDE SOME OF THOSE USES THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED, POOLS, PLAYHOUSES, PARSONAGES.

>> AND CHURCHES WILL BE ABLE TO BE IN THERE.

OKAY. SO IS THE LAND GOING TO BE BIG ENOUGH TO ALLOW THESE THINGS? I KNOW THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN DECREASED TO HOW MANY SQUARE FOOTAGE, IS IT? I DON'T HAVE MY BOOK IN FRONT OF ME?

>> R6 REQUIRES 25-FOOT OR GREATER LOT WIDTH.

>> 2500 SQUARE FEET. >> THAT'S KIND OF SMALL.

>> ON THE SMALLEST SIDE. >> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL.

>> MAYOR: THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM 6,

ORDINANCE 127-2021-22. >> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z34, 2022, MICHAEL JOSEPH, CHRISTIAN BLACK AGENT.

1.13 ACRES. PRESENTLY ZONED R2 REQUESTING TO GO TO R6. IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R6. THE PROPERTY IS AT PARADISE HILL ROAD AND SEA COURT INTERSECTION, CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 7.

[00:30:06]

THERE WERE NO OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.

OBVIOUSLY SIDEWALK WOULD BE REQUIRED IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY PER THE R6 REQUIREMENTS.

HERE'S THE PROPERTY ON THE LEFT, PARADISE HILL ROAD, SEE COURT ON THE LEFT. R3, MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. HISTORICAL AMOUNTS WOULD SAY IS 12UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

R6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE, NO ADD VEERS

ADVERSEENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDE. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

STREETMAN. >> COUNCILPERSON: THE HOMEOWNER WAS THERE TO SPEAK AND I HOPE I DON'T GET THIS PART WRONG, IF I RECALL, THE COUPLE WAS IN THEIR 60S AND THE WIFE ACTUALLY READ A STATEMENT FROM THE HUSBAND BECAUSE HE WAS OUT OF TOWN ON MISSION WORK. BUT THEY ARE CURRENTLY, HE IS HAVING TO WORK TO PUSH MOW AND MOW THIS, DO THE UPKEEP ON THE HOUSE AND WHAT THEY ARE LOOK TO GO DO IS THEY ARE GOING TO TEAR THIS HOUSE DOWN, AS STATED, OF THE HOUSES THAT WILL BE BUILT THEM, ONE OF THEM WILL BE THEIR HOUSE.

WHERE THEY ARE DOING WORK, THEY LOOKED AT THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY. I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH EVERYTHING THEY SAID AND WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO AND THEIR REASONING AND THE NEIGHBORS AROUND ARE ALSO IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THERE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO

VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS. >> MAYOR: MR. TYNDALL, WE ARE HEARING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE PHRASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AFFORDABLE TO WHOM, I WONDER. >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION?

>> BIG A OR LITTLE A. >> THIS IS LITTLE A AFFORDABLE HOUSING. PRICES KEEP GOING UP EVERY DAY.

>> NO KIDDING. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, WE ARE KNOW READY FOR ITEM 7, I BELIEVE, ORDINANCE 128-2021-22. MR. TYNDALL.

>> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z35-2022, THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT ROYL OORSNC, AGENT IS BOBBY POWERS.

1.47 ACRES ZONED M1 AND REQUESTING TO BE TO CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THAT CLASSIFICATION. THE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SPRING STREET AND MCCLURE STREET AND MCCLURE AND WILCOX. FOR MANY THIS IS KNOWN AS WAREHOUSE. WARD NO. 6.

THE BUILDING IS A CIRCA 1950S TOBACCO WAREHOUSE THAT HAS BEEN HEAVILY ALTERED OVER TIME AND CURRENTLY BEING USED AS NIGHTCLUB AND OTHER USES. THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS THE CURRENT M1 IS NO LONGER VIABLE TO THIS AREA.

CBD WOULD ALLOW FOR MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT, AN EXTENSION OF THE CBD FROM WEST AND EAST. THERE IT IS.

I WILL SAY, IT IS THE APPLICANT'S INTENTION TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE BUILDING AS POSSIBLE AND REDEVELOP IT.

AND PUT A NEW FACELIFT ON IT BUT KEEP THE HERITAGE OF IT BEING A TOBACCO WAREHOUSE. THIS PARKING BEHIND IT IS PART OF THE SAME PROPERTY. THIS WILL BE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND THAT'S LOOKING UP FROM RIVERSIDE DRIVE.

AND LOOKING BACK DOWN FROM WILCOX STREET.

MCCLURE STREET. THANK YOU.

THERE WERE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS FROM THE DEPARTMENT.

WE DO NOT HAVE AN HISTORICAL ESTIMATE AS CBD DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR BASICALLY UNLIMITED DENSITY AND HEIGHT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS

[00:35:02]

ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE AND NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL, ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION? WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 8, ORDER ORDINANCE 129- 2022-22.

>> Z36, 2022. APPLICATION OF GEORGE KENNEDY III, AGENT IS RICHARD GARRETT. THIS IS A CASE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED TWO MONTHS AGO TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN THE YEAR. THEY HAD APPLIED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR R4, THEN REMOVED IT BEFORE IT GOT TO CITY COUNCIL BUT THE LAW STATES THAT ONCE YOU INITIATE ANY ACTION, YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN A YEAR OR GET THE PERMISSION TO COME BACK.

YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY SEEN THIS YET BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS SEEN THIS TWICE. 14.43 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED AG, REQUESTING TO BE TO R2 AND IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE R2 NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST. THE PROPERTY IS ON KENNEDY LANE, 700 FEET NORTHWEST OF KENNEDY LANE, HEATHERWOOD TRACE INTERSECTION AND CITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 12.

SEMI WOODED TRACT WITH MILD TOPOGRAPHY.

APPLICANT STATEMENT IS WE ARE SEEKING TO REZONE THIS PARCEL FROM AG TO R2 TO BUILD BETWEEN 35 AND 45 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 60-FOOT WIDE LOT, 2800 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER TO COME PRELIMINARY THE EXISTING HOMES. WE WILL MAINTAIN TO 719 KENNEDY LANE FOR THEIR PRIVACY. THE SMALL NOTCH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY. AN EXISTING HOME AND HOMEOWNER IN THAT AREA. HERE'S THE ENTRANCE TO -- THAT IS HEART STONE, PROPERTY JUST BEYOND IT ON THE LEFT.

INTERSTATE 24 IS ON YOUR RIGHT. VERY DENSELY WOODED PROPERTY.

HERE'S THE HOME THAT IS SURROUNDED BY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THERE'S NO GRAVITY SEWER, IT WILL REQUIRE OFF-SITE SEWER EXTENSION.

THERE WAS A TRAFFIC ASSESS MANYT REQUIRED.

TRAFFIC AS ASSESSMENT WAS ACCEPTABLE.

THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON KENNEDY LANE DOESN'T CHANGE, THERE IS MENTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE KENNEDY LANE WESTFIELD COURT INTERSECTION AND SOMETHING CONSIDERED AND ENCOURAGED IN THE FUTURE. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT WAS FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM REGARDING CAPACITIES OF THE SCHOOLS LISTED. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 40 UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED R2 IS AN EXTENSION OF THE ESTABLISHED R2 DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH AND WEST.

THE R2 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. KENNEDY LANE AND WESTFIELD COURT INTERSECTION IS IDENTIFIED AS CONCERN FOR TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING SCRD.

CONSIDERED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU

ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE IN AND OUT. I UNDERSTAND THE NUMBER OF ROOFTOPS THERE IS APPROACHING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER FOR ONE-WAY IN AND OUT. BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BUSINESSES AT THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE TO GET BY AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT LEFT-HAND TURN.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAP, I DON'T SEE ANY OF THE PROPERTY STUBBED TO COME BACK OUT. AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

>> MEANING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HERE.

>> NOT NECESSARILY, KENNEDY LANE AS A WHOLE?

>> OR THE COMMUNITY, THE -- I'M LOOKING AT THE PAGE 78, THE SUBDIVISION THAT'S THERE, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER WAY OUT.

I DON'T SEE ANY STUBS IN THERE. >> CORRECT.

BECAUSE THAT IS FLOODPLAIN TO THE WEST AND YOU HAVE THE SPRING CREEK ALSO THERE. THE ONLY POTENTIAL IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE TO TAKE KENNEDY LANE AND RUN IT NORTH ACROSS THE SPRING CREEK ADJACENT TO THE INTERSTATE, YOU GO TO MERRYWEATHER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MAP RIGHT THERE.

>> COUNCILPERSON: WE ARE CREATING ANOTHER BOTTLENECK, IF THERE IS AN ACCIDENT AT ONE OF THE BUSINESSES, YOU CAN'T GET IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS WE INFILL. I HAVE A CONCERN THAT WE DON'T KEEP VOTING THAT IN WITHOUT A SET -- EVEN IF IT IS ON THE TRANSPORTATION 2020 PLAN, WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT TO SAY WE COULD IS PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH FOR OUR RESIDENTS ANYMORE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE.

MY EMAILS ARE BLOWING UP. THEY DON'T APPRECIATE WHAT SOME

[00:40:02]

OF THESE ZONING. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LIVE IN MEADOWS OF HEARTH STONE.

AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE THAT, IT IS ALREADY A BOTTLENECK.

MR. TYNDALL KNOWS I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON TRYING TO GET SOMETHING DONE WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS A PERSON WHO WRECKED AND DIED ON KENNEDY AND WE ALL COULD NOT GET IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR EIGHT HOURS. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN LET US WALK IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT WAS A FATALITY.

THE ISSUE -- THIS GOES BACK TO EVERYTHING I ALWAYS SAY IS THE ISSUE IS THERE HAS TO BE THE PRESSURE ALREADY TO GET ACTION ON THESE THINGS. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M THANKFUL FOR THIS ZONING BECAUSE NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKING THE CHANGES THERE THAT HAVE NEEDED TO BE CHANGES SINCE I MOVED IN THERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I BOUGHT MY HOME THERE KNOWING THAT THAT INTERSECTION WAS AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE ARE VERY SECLUDED BACK THERE. IT IS A REALLY GOOD LOCATION.

THE AGENT FOR THIS REACHED OUT TO ME AND GAVE ME, LIKE, WALK-THROUGHS OF WHAT THE HOUSES ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

I FORWARDED THAT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE GROUP.

OF COURSE, THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THERE THAT DON'T WANT ANYTHING PUT THERE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THIS IS LEAPS AND BOUNDS AHEAD OF THE -- WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO? R4.

HOWEVER, I AM OF THE PERSONAL OPINION IN THIS AREA BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO GET A CONNECTOR AT SOME POINT JUNCTURE, WE ARE.

WE ARE GOING TO GET ANOTHER WAY IN OR OUT AT SOME POINT.

AND IN MY OPINION, TO PROTECT THIS AREA IS TO PUT THE SAME THING IN THIS PLOT THAT IS IN THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING R4, EVERYBODY SAID TO ME, WELL, IF THEY WOULD JUST PUT OTHER HOUSES LIKE OURS IN HERE, THEN THIS WOULD BE FINE. SO I'M GOING TO GO OFF OF THAT, WHAT THEY TOLD ME IN THE PAST, THAT THEY WOULD PREFER IT TO BE SIMILAR HOUSING TO WHAT WE HAVE. THAT PROTECTS US.

THAT PROTECTS WHAT CAN GO THERE IN THE FUTURE.

THAT PROTECTS OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

, ET CETERA. SO I ACTUALLY SUPPORT THIS ONE AND I REALLY -- LOOKING AT MR. COWAN, I HOPE THIS HELPS US GET WHATEVER SOLUTION IT IS FOR THAT INTERSECTION.

THE CHICK-FIL-A, CHIPOTLE THING WAS A FIASCO.

SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD ARE GOING TO BE UNHAPPY WITH THAT BUT I TRULY AND EARNESTLY SEE IT AS A WAY TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: YEAH, MAYOR, THIS IS FOR YOU. SO IF YOU TOOK OUT YOUR MAGIC EIGHT BALL AND SHOOK IT, AND WE TALK ABOUT, WE MIGHT GET A CONNECTOR? TEN YEARS, 12 YEARS, 15 WOULD

YEARS? >> MAYOR: A CONNECTOR.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THE OTHER SIDE.

>> MAYOR: TO CONNECT KENNEDY ROAD TO MERRYWEATHER.

HOW OLD ARE YOU? I HATE TO BE GLIB AND CURT, WE HAVE GOT PROBABLY $200 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS IN FRONT OF THAT. WE CAN START WORKING ON IT NOW BUT AS WE HAVE LEARNED WITH ROSSVIEW ROAD WHO IS A TEENAGER

NOW, IT TAKES A LONG TIME. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM

NO. 9, ORDINANCE 130-2021-22. >> MR. TYNDALL.

>> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z37-2022, APPLICATION OF ANTONIO AND KEISHA JEFFERSON. JUST OVER HALF ACRE, .53 ACRES.

CURRENTLY ZONED R3, REQUESTING TO GO TO R6.

IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R6.

THIS PROPERTY IS TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CARPENTER STREET AND FRD FORD STREET.

VACANT GRASS LINED WITH MILD SLOPE.

THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS THIS PROPERTY IS BEING ZONED TO PROVIDE SINGLE FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOTS TO HELP MEET THE CURRENT NEED OF THE CITY, LITTLE A AFFORDABLE.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION RIGHT HERE.

THERE'S A CITY PUMPING STATION JUST BEHIND THE PROPERTY.

LOOKING UP FORD STREET. YOU SAW AN APPLICATION HERE JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT WAS WITHDRAWN JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS ONE. ONE OF THE FE FEW COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A FEW DOORS DOWN FROM THIS IN QUESTION. AND THAT'S A LITTLE FURTHER ON

[00:45:01]

THE PROPOSED R6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE AND NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED.

PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: IS THIS IS IN THE AREA WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY

PERFORMING THE STUDY? >> YES.

THIS IS IN THE AREA WHERE WE -- THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID THEIR STUDY PRESENTED TWO MONTHS AGO.

WE HAVE A RFP THAT WILL GO OUT NEXT WEEK FOR CONSULTING SERVICE TO SAY A COMMUNITY-WIDE LAND USE PLAN.

>> DID MR. JEFFERSON CONTACT YOU?

>> THEY DID NOT. >> SO, WE ARE PAYING FOR A STUDY AND THE PERSON THAT REPRESENTS THIS DISTRICT TRIED TO CHANGE IT AND WE SAID NO, WAIT FOR THE STUDY, AS A WHOLE.

WE DID NOT SUPPORT HER REQUEST TO REZONE BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO REZONE TO REZONE. SO I WOULD ASK THAT IN RESPECT OF THE STUDY AND IN RESPECT OF COUNCILPERSON ALLEN WHO REQUESTED IT THAT WE NOT APPROVE THIS, NOT BECAUSE I'M NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH R6, BUT I THINK THAT WE OWE IT TO LET THE STUDY COME BACK AND DETERMINE WHAT'S BEST FOR THAT COMMUNITY AND I JUST THINK THAT THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AT THIS MOMENT. I DID SPEAK TO MR. JEFFERSON AT THE MEETING, AT THE RPC MEETING, AND TOLD HIM, YOU KNOW, EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING NOW. I WAS VERY TRANSPARENT.

AND WE ALREADY HAD ANOTHER PERSON WHO WITHDREW THEIRS WAITING ON THE STUDY. AND I ASK HIM TO REACH OUT TO YOU TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. BUT I HOPE IN THE FUTURE THAT WHILE THE STUDY IS GOING ON THAT, AT LEAST THAT CONVERSATION IS HAD WITH PEOPLE COMING INTO THE RED RIVER UNTIL AFTER THE STUDY ASKING TO REZONE. THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO MEET WHEN THEY COME HERE. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE

TRANSPARENT WITH THEM. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WILL ECHO SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS SAID BY COUNCILPERSON FOR WARD 9.

I THINK WE NEED TO POSTPONE THIS OR WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO STOP ALLOWING PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR R6 BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT R6 IS INFILL THAT OVER POPULATES. WHAT IT DOES, IT BRINGS THE HIGH DENSITY AS WELL AS WE KNOW THAT IT WAS NOT A GOOD PLAN FOR THAT AREA. IT DOES NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THIS IS AN HISTORICAL AREA.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TALKED TO THEM, TOLD THEM, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY COME UP WITH R6.

THIS IS ONE OF THE ZONES THAT WE ARE PROHIBITING IN THAT AREA.

EVEN THOUGH WE VOTE IT DOWN. I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL WE GET WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THAT AREA. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO TALK WITH THE JEFFERSONS, MR.AND MRS. JEFFERSON, ABOUT THIS TO SEE HOW THEY COME UP WITH R6 PLAN BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A GOOD PLAN FOR THAT AREA. THIS IS AN HISTORICAL AREA AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR HOMES THAT WILL FIT THE CHARACTER, AFFORDABLE HOMES, NOT TALKING ABOUT LITTLE SMALL MATCH BOX HOMES OR BARN FARM HOMES. I HAVE A PICTURE OF ONE THAT IS OFF. IT LOOKS BAD.

SO TRYING TO PUT SIX UNITS OVER HERE -- SEVEN UNITS OVER HERE BY THIS CHURCH, YOU WILL HAVE SOME OPPOSITION BECAUSE SOMEONE IS COMING TO SPEAK AGAINST THAT AND THAT IS NOT GOOD.

IT DOES NOT FIT. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MR. TYNDALL, I KNOW THERE'S RESTRICTIONS ON HOW LONG SOMETHING CAN BE POSTPONED, DECISION MUST BE MADE IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. FORGIVE ME THAT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT TIME LIMIT IS. IF WE CHOSE TO POSTPONE THIS, WHAT'S THE LENGTH OF TIME BEFORE A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE

ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. >> FROM TODAY, YOU HAVE TO VOTE WITHIN HUNDRED DAYS. WE HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND REA

READING. >> SECOND READING HAS TO HAPPEN

WITHIN THE HUNDRED DAYS. >> OTHERWISE, PER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT AUTOMATICALLY FAILS.

>> WHICH MEANS IF HE WANTED TO COME FORWARD, HE WOULD HAVE TO

PAIT PAY THE COST TO REAPPLY. >> YOU ARE WITHIN THAT YEAR ALREADY. WITH THEY WITHDRAW OR DENY IT,

IT IS THE SAME THING. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

[00:50:03]

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK, MAYOR. DID WE ALREADY DISCUSS A MORATORIUM ON THIS AREA DURING THIS? I THOUGHT WE DID ALREADY DISCUSS THAT IN A PREVIOUS MEETING.

>> THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE STUDY.

I KNOW MR. BAKER IS NOT HERE. MORATORIUM FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE LIKE THIS IS HIGHLY FROWNED UPON.

IT SETS YOU UP FOR A LOSING LAWSUIT BECAUSE IT IS NOT TIED TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND CIVIC CAPACITY.

>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION TO MR. BITNER, DOES THIS HAVE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS IF WE START DOING THIS? LIKE REGULAR FOR ANYTHING THAT COMES UP IN THIS AREA NUMB THAT

STUDY IS DONE. >> MR. BITNER, WE WILL ASK YOU TO COME TO THE WELL AND ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS COULD BE SEEN -- MORATORIUM AND COULD BE SEEN AS TAKING, A POSSIBLE --

>> I'M NOT SPECIFICALLY SAYING MORATORIUM.

I'M PRETTY SURE WE SHOT DOWN THAT IDEA.

I'M SAYING IF WE START POSTPONING ALL OF THESE -- IF ANY MORE COME IN IN IN AREA AND WE START POSTPONING THEM REGULARLY, DEWS T DOES THAT OPEL IMPLICATIONS.

>> IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO POSTPONE, I THINK YOU CAN DO IT. IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE VERY GOOD REASON TO DO. OTHERWISE I THINK YOU ARE

LOOKING AT -- >> DOES THE WAITING FOR THE STUDY TO COME BACK, IS THAT KOSHER?

IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE? >> HOW LONG WILL THE STUDY TAKE?

>> DO WE KNOW THAT, MR. TYNDALL? >> SO THE RFP SHOULD GO OUT NEXT WEEK. I WILL PUT IN THE RFP IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

SIX TO SEVEN MONTHS TO HAVE THE STUDY BACK AND ADOPTED.

I FEAR THAT IF YOU CHOSE TO TURN DOWN EVERYTHING, IT WOULD BE

INCOMPEINCOMPINCOMPWOULD BEIPSO. >> SO ARE WE TELLING THESE PEOPLE, LIKE, THE JEFFERSONS, BEFORE TALKING TO A PREVIOUS SPEAKER, DID THEY KNOW THAT THIS WAS GOING ON IN THIS AREA? THAT THEY COULD, IN FACT, GET REZONED AGAIN IN SIX MONTHS?

>> I DID NOT HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

I BELIEVE THEY JUST BROUGHT IN THE APPLICATION.

THEY ARE ACTUALLY THE LANDOWNERS, NOT AGENTS LIKE THE PAST ONE. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR SOMEONE ELSE IN MY OFFICE THAT MAYBE G GOT TO SPEAK WITH THEM.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT I CAN'T GUARANTY R6 IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE ZONE WHEN THE STUDY IS DONE EITHER.

IT COULD BE SOMETHING IN BETWEEN R3 AND R6 THAT IS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. WE KNOW R3 IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

THE SENSE THAT R6 ISN'T. THERE MAYBE A SWEET SPOT THAT IS APPROPRIATE. THIS AREA, THIS SPECIAL AREA,

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT, THANK YOU >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE DOING ANOTHER STUDY. I THOUGHT THAT YOUR OFFICE HAD ALREADY DID A STUDY IN THAT AREA.

YOU PRESENTED IT TO ME AT A MEETING.

SO WHAT IS THIS NEW ZUD S STUDY? WE COULD DO R2A.

SOMETHING I REQUESTED AND IT WAS VOTED DONE.

YOU ALSO PRESENTED R6 AND WE WENT AGAINST THAT.

YOU ALSO PRESENTED ANOTHER ZONING CASE THAT WE CAN DO.

BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU KEEP GIVING THESE PEOPLE R6 TO PUT IN THAT AREA WHEN IT DOES NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE HOMES THERE AND I LIVE IN THAT AREA.

RIGHT UP THE STREET FROM THIS PLACE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE R6 WHICH IS -- IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THAT AREA.

AND YOU NO HE THAT. KNOW THAT.

YOU DO THINGS BECAUSE YOU ARE BIG ENOUGH TO DO IT SO YOU KEEP DOING IT, BUT ONE DAY THINGS WITH CHANGE.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH. >> COUNCILPERSON: I CAN SEE HOW HE IS DOING THINGS AND IT IS NOT RIGHT.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH, LET'S STICK TO THE --

>> I WILL EXPLAIN ONE QUESTION. >> COUNCILPERSON: I WILL SAY

[00:55:07]

YOU ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE A DIRECTOR CAUSING SO MUCH HAVOC AND STUFF IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES.

YOU DO THAT INTENTIONALLY. AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL SEE YOURSELF AS NOTHING BUT HAVOC CAUSING.

YOU CAUSE CHAOS AND HAVOC EVERY TIME YOU STEP FORWARD.

I AIN'T GOING TO SAY NO MORE. I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY. LET ME LEAVE IT ALONE,

MR. MAYOR. >> MAYOR: MR. TYNDALL.

>> I WILL RESPOND TO THE STUDY COMMENT FIRST.

THE ONE OF THE FOUR OPTIONS, YES, IT WAS R2A, R6, PARTNERS WITH MR. NEW BURN'S OFFICE AND HAD CBDG FUNDS TO HAVE INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY ENGINEER FIRM STUDY THE 100 ACRES, 300 LOTS IN THIS AREA, FOR THEIR ONLY LAND USE PLAN THAT WOULD GUIDE FUTURE ZONING AND LAND USE DECISIONS WHICH COULD BE AN AREA WIDE REZONING AND LIKELY TO SAY NONE OF YOUR EXISTING ZONES ARE LIKELY TO BE APPROPRIATE. NOT R3, NOT R6.

WHAT IS IT? IT COULD BE A MIX OF THAT.

ONCE THAT STUDY IS COMPLETED, IT WILL INCLUDE TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS IN THERE, ONE TO DISCUSS WHAT THE FUTURE WOULD LIKE TO BE AND THE OTHER TO DISCUSS THE OUTCOMES OF THEIR STUDY BEFORE IT COMES TO CITY COUNCIL, SO THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENT, THOUGH, THAT WE ARE CAUSING HAVOC AND WE REZONE THINGS AND WE ENCOURAGE THIS.

I DO NOT KNOW THIS APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW MOST PEOPLE THAT WALK THROUGH THE DOOR. THEY JUST BRING THE APPLICATIONS. IT IS THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT AS LANDOWNERS TO REQUEST A REZONING.

EVEN IF WE DISAGREE WITH IT, BECAUSE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVE THINGS FROM TIME TO TIME.

IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT TO REZONING OF THEIR PROPERTY. I DON'T GO OUT SEARCHING FOR THIS. WE DON'T NEED THE ADDITIONAL WORK RIGHT NOW. I WILL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, RECOGNIZED ON THE

ZONING CASE. >> COUNCILPERSON: MR. TYNDALL, PART OF THE STUDY WE DISCUSSED, OR I DISCUSSED WITH MR. NEW BURN, WAS ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN TRUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LIKE OTHER KIND OF FUNDING AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN WE SENT OUT THE REQUEST FOR THE STUDY THAT WE WERE GOING TO INCLUDE SOMEONE TO LOOK AT THAT AND SOME OF THE STUDE OPPORTUNIN THIS AREA TO BUILD SUBSIDIZED. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW UNLESS IT WAS SUBSIDIZED. THAT WAS ANOTHER PART OF THE GRANT -- NOT THE GRANT, THE STUDY.

>> THAT CAN BE PART OF THE STUDY.

BUT THERE IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT FUNDING STREAM IN HIS OFFICE TO PROVIDE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES CURRENTLY.

>> AND THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, AS WE LOOKED AT

THE ZONINGS IN THIS COMMUNITY. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH.

>> I WILL BE SHORT AND RESPECTFUL.

I WILL SAY THIS. I HAVE COME TO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO YOUR OFFICE AND TOLD ME THAT YA'LL, SOME OF YA'LL HAVE PERSUADED THEM INTO DOING R6 BECAUSE THEY CAN GET MORE HOMES ON A SMALL LOT AND THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR: ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS CASE? WITH WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM

10, ORDINANCE 131, MR. TYNDALL. >> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z38-2022, APPLICATION OF J&N ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED.

1.14 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED R4 REQUESTING TO BE TO R6 AND IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R6. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST R6 REQUEST IN THE NEW PROVIDENCE AREA SOUTH OF PROVIDENCE BOULEVARD. THIS PARCEL FRONTS POWER STREET AND PEACH STREET INTERSECTIONS, COUNCIL WORD NO. 4.

IRREGULAR-SHAPED, FORMERLY A MOBILE HOME PARK BUT IT HASN'T BEEN USED FOR MANY YEARS. APPLICANT STATEMENT IS THE REASON FOR THE ZONE CHANGE IS THIS IS THE PERFECT FIT FOR AFFORDABLE HOMES. LITTLE A.

HERE POWER STREET LOOKING FROM THE INTERSECTION, PEACH STREET BACK ACROSS, AND LOOKING BACK TOWARD THE PROPERTY ON POWERS STREET DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL THERE.

THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

AND ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. NO OTHER CONCERNS.

YOU CAN SEE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMENTS.

HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD BE 8 UNITS.

DUE TO THE WEIRD SHAPE OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT MAY BE A LITTLE

[01:00:04]

PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN. PROPOSED R6 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE STATED DURING THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE OTHER DAY IS THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE LIKELY A REDUCTION IN THE DENSITY OVER THERE AS WELL.

CORRECT? >> OH, ABSOLUTELY.

1.14 ACRES OF R6 IS ALMOST 20 UNITS.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 11,

ORDINANCE 132-2021,-22. >> Z29, JEFF AND PAUL JERLES, SYD HEDRIC AGENT. REQUESTING TO GO TO R4, IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R4. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SR374 AND PEA RIDGE ROAD AND THE TERM NEWS OF DELL RAY DRIVE. CURRENTLY GRASS LAND FIELD.

AND THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS THE PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PEA RIDGE AND HIGHWAY 74 IS WELL SUITED FOR THE CURRENT C5 ZONING.

REMAINING PROPERTY PROPOSES R4 ZONE CHANGE TO BE USED AS A BUFFER AS WELL AS OFFER AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS IN THE AREA. SO THIS PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THE MIDDLE IS SHADED ORANGE WITH THE R4 CHANGE.

THE C5, TAIL TO THE RIGHT IS STILL PART OF THIS PARCEL.

SO IT IS NOT A PERFECT RECTANGLE.

IT HAS THAT TAIL OVER THERE. C5.

THAT SIDE WILL ALSO BE THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THIS PROPERTY.

THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD KEEP THAT DRIVEWAY AS FAR AWAY AS 374 AS POSSIBLE.

THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT DELL RAY COULD EXTEND, BUT NO REASON TO DO THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP THIS AS COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY. THIS IS AN ODD PIECE OF PROPERTY. PROBABLY BEST USE OF IT IS STILL PROBABLY R2 LIKE THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THIS WAS DONE BACK IN 1998, JUST AFTER 374 LIKELY GOT COMPLETED AND THEY THOUGHT HAVING A COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING OUT THERE. THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE CHURCH OVER THERE, ACROSS PEA RIDGE ROAD TO THE PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THE CHURCH'S DRIVEWAY RIGHT THERE, OTHER DRIVEWAY WOULD LIKELY LINE UP ACROSS FROM THAT.

THIS IS PEA RIDGE ROAD BACK TOWARD 374.

PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT, JUST BEYOND THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE.

THIS IS DELL RAY DRIVE. SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST LOOKING BACK. THE APPLICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO ON THIS PROPERTY, IF THEY DON'T CONTINUE DELL RAY DRIVE, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PUT A TURN AROUND FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

HERE'S THE PROPERTY ON 374. POWER LINES THERE, IT HAS TWO SETS OF TBA POWER LINES THAT CROSS MOST OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS UNBUILDABLE. YOU CAN'T PUT STRUCTURES UNDER THE EASEMENTS OUT THERE. THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE NATURALLY SEPARATED FROM DELL RAY JUST BECAUSE OF THE TDA EASEMENT IN THE MIDDLE THERE. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, DRAINAGE IS ISSUE IN THE AREA.

YOU WILL SEE TWO OTHER CASES TODAY IN THIS GENERAL AREA.

THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME CONCERN, DRAINAGE COMING FROM NORTH OF NEEDMORE. THAT'S WHY THE AREA NEXT TO THE CHURCH IS OFTEN WET. IT IS THE LOWEST AREA OUT THERE.

THE OTHER COMMENTS ARE FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM REGARDING THE CAPACITIES AT THEIR SCHOOLS LISTED.

HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD BE 139 UNITS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. PROPOSED R4 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE USE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND IS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THE C5 TO THE R1 AND R2 TO THE WEST.

ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN ENCOURAGES DESIRABLE MIX OF USING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE. DRAINAGE ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND WILL REQUIRE RESOLUTION DEEMED ACCEPTABLE TO THE CLARKSVILLE STREET DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE. PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO

RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, SIR, COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: YES, HELLO. EVERYBODY HAS PROBABLY SEEN SOME OF THE EMAILS FROM THE RESI RESIDENTS.

I ACTUALLY HANDED OUT TODAY AND GAVE A COPY TO OUR CITY CLERK.

THIS IS THE RAIN JUST TODAY. WE DID NOT GET AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF RAIN TODAY. BUT THIS IS WHAT THE PROPERTIES

[01:05:02]

SO COULD WE GO TO PAGE 105. YEAH.

SO THE WATER DRAINAGE STARTS HERE AND GOES INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, IT KEEPS FLOWING THROUGH THAT LARGE EMPTY LOT. THEY HAVE A RETENTION BASIN.

AND THEN IT CONTINUES TO FLOW BLBACK OVER NEEDMORE, OR COMES THROUGH NEEDMORE. BUT IF YOU LOOK ON LARK DRIVE.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOODING AND THIS IS WHERE THE PICTURES ARE. SO I WILL COME BACK TO THIS WHEN WE GO OVER TO THE LARK DRIVE. YOU CAN SEE ON THIS TODAY, THE WATER THERE IS A LOT OF WATER AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT, THEY NEED HIGHER CULVERTS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED.

WATER BACKS UP. WE ARE ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST TWO PICTURES IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE ACTUALLY BUILDING A HOME ON A LOT AND YOU CAN SEE THE WATER SITTING ON THAT LOT.

THIS IS STILL COMING IN AND OUT OF THIS AREA AND THEN IT WILL GO TO THE OTHER ZONING. SO THERE IS GREAT DEAL OF DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT REALLY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BEFORE NOT

AFTER. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

SHAKEENAB. >> COUNCILPERSON: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE RPC OR THE STREET DEPARTMENT CAN DO PRIORITY ANY DEVEL DEVELOPMENT S JUST -- WHAT CAN BE DONE?

>> WITH ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY MOST DRAINAGE ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED. UP SIZING PIPES, RAISING PROPERTY, CHANNELIZATIONS. WHEN THINGS COME IN FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, WE ARE UPGRADING DRAINAGE.

WE ARE CENTRALIZING IT AND CHANNELING IT OUT.

THIS IS A VERY SORT OF FLAT SLOPING AREA FROM NEEDMORE ALL THE WAY SOUTH AND WATER CROSSES EVERYONE'S PROPERTY OUT HERE.

BUT CHANNELIZING IT, FOCUSING IT.

YOU HAVE A LARGE FARM IN THE MIDDLE THAT IS NOT HELPING THINGS BECAUSE THERE'S NO -- JUST GOING ACROSS THE LAND.

BUT, YES, DEVELOPMENT CAN SOMETIMES IMPROVE DRAINAGE

SITUATIONS. >> COUNCILPERSON: SO WOULD THAT BE UP TO THE CITY OR THE DEVELOPER?

>> DRAINAGE ENTERING THE SITE OR ORIGINATEING FROM THIS SITE WOULD BE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, IF IT TIES INTO NEARBY CITY IMPROVEMENT, IT MAY BE TIED TO THAT. AN AREA-WIDE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT WOULD LIKELY BE INVOLVING THE CITY STREET

DEPARTMENT. >> MAYOR: CRCOUNCILPERSON

STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> I VOTED AGAINST THIS ON THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE SINCE THEN LEARNED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. I DO BELIEVE FROM MOO MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO CONFIRM THIS, THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY -- THIS PARTICULAR ONE, NOT ONE WE ARE DISCUSSING LATER, THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS ACTUALLY AT A LOWER ELEVATION JUST LIKE YOU JUST MENTIONED WHERE IT IS SLOPING THAN THE OTHER PROPERTY.

SO IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY, HOW SLOPE IS GOING TO WORK, ALL THIS DRAINAGE IS GOING ON TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE REZONED, CORRECT?

>> A LOT OF DRAINAGE REACHES THIS PROPERTY CROSSING CHURCH CHRIST AND POND NEXT TO IT, AND THE PUBLIC SITE ACROSS THE STREET ALSO HAS A BIT OF A SWAMPY AREA.

THAT'S THE LOW AREA. A LOT OF IT DOES COME TO THIS

PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY, LOOKS LIKE WE ARE READY FOR ITEM NO. 2, ORDINANCE

133-2021-22. >> PROBABLY THE EASIEST CASE OF THE YEAR, Z40-2022. APPLICATION OF NANCY BAGWELL, CHRIS FIELDER AGENT, CURRENTLY ZONED R1 TO GO TO C5.

IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE C5 ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

PROPERTY FRONTS OLD RUSSELLVILLE PIKE NEAR RUSSELLVILLE PIKE HICKORY TRACE INTERSECTIONS, CITY COUNCIL WORD NO. 11.

OVERGROWN LOT WITH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR. THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM R1 TO C5 TO COMBINE WITH THE EXISTING C5 AUTOMOTIVE DEALER ABUTTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST. BACK END OF WYATT JOHNSON SUBURU. THEY INTEND TO PURCHASE IT AND

[01:10:02]

374 ON-RAMP AND C5 AND C2 ALL OVER THE PLACE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THERE WERE NO OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. C5 IS AN EXTENSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL. READY FOR ITEM NO. 13, ORDINANCE

134-2021-22. >> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z41-2022, APPLICATION OF B.J. PROPERTIES.

6.63 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED C5, REQUESTING TO GO TO R4.

IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE R4.

THE PROPERTY FRONTS WESTERN FRONTAGE OF DENNY ROAD.

CITY COUNCIL WORD NO. 7. GRASS FIELD ABOUT MILD TOPOGRAPHY. APPLICANT STATEMENT IS DENNY ROAD IS NOT AN ARTERIAL MAKING C5 INAPPROPRIATE.

R4 4 WOULD BE MORE SUITABLE ZONG AND LESS OF AN IMPACT ON THE AREA. THIS IS DENNY ROAD LOOKING DOWN TOWARD THE PROPERTY. DENNY LOOKING TOWARD MADISON, PROPERTY ON THE LEFT. THIS IS THE HOME ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT. CURRENTLY SOME TRAILERS ON THAT C5 PROPERTY. THIS IS LOOKING FROM TACO BELL BACK TO THE PROPERTY, STARTS WHERE THE TREES ARE BEHIND THAT STRIP CENTER RIGHT THERE. AND LOOKING FROM THE BACK OF THE STRIP CENTER BACK TOWARD THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S A SMALL MOBILE HOME PARK ACROSS DENNY ROAD RIGHT ACROSS FROM THIS REPORT. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, GAS AND WATER SAID GRAVITY SEWER EXTENSION MAY BE REQUIRED AND YOU SEE THE COMMENTS FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM REGARDING THEIR CAPACITY AT THE SCHOOLS LISTED.

HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 79 UNITS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED R4 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND PROPERTIES AND IT PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM C5 ALONG MADISON STREET TO THE R1 DISTRICT TO THE SOUTH. THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN STATES IT IS ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN DESIRABLE MIX TO MAINTAIN HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON HOLLEMAN, YOU ARE REC NEWSED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THE EXITS ON BOTH SIDES OF MADISON STREET AND BYPASSES CAN BE A LITTLE HAZARDOUS.

DO WE KNOW THE EXITS AND STUFF IN THAT'S A LOT OF UNITS AND

THAT'S A FAIRLY NARROW ROAD. >> I WILL TRY TO ANSWER THAT.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN OUT TO THE INTERSECTION OF MADISON AND MLK RECENTLY, YOU HAVE SEEN A LOT OF WORK GOING ON, A LOT OF PIPE.

LATER THIS YEAR, THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT WILL BE COMPLETED OUT THERE WHICH ACTUALLY WILL REMOVE MANY OF THE DRIVEWAYS. CAPTAIN D'S, TACO BELL -- MAYBE NOT TACO BELL. ARBY'S, STARBUCKS.

THERE WILL BE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND MEDIAN THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE LEFT TURNS ANYMORE THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION WELLS ON THE WALL SMWALMART SIDE. DENNY STREET WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNAL. HOWEVER, WITH THE SIGNAL AT MISS LUCILLE'S ENTRANCE, THAT SHOULD SLOW THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL ALLOW DENNY ROAD TO HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET OUT OF THERE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I CAN GET YOU A PICTURE OF THE PLAN AS COMPLETED SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE

THE ROADS ALL LINE UP. >> COUNCILPERSON: YEAH, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, SEND THAT TO MY E-MAIL.

>> I WILL E-MAIL EVERYONE. >> IF YOU SHARE THAT WITH THE CLERK, THEY WILL SHARE IT. SIX MONTHS AGO, YOU SAW A LOT OF WORK GOING ON OUT THERE. IT HAS STUD SUDDENLY STOPPED.

I WILL GIVE YOU TWO GUESSES AS TO WHY.

WE WILL MOVE ON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? JUST COULDN'T HELP MYSELF. WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT CASE.

THAT WOULD BE ITEM 14, ORDINANCE 135, MR. TYNDALL, PLEASE.

>> Z42-2022, APPLICATION OF MARY RITTER.

APPLICATION IS 3.84 ACRES OF R1, REQUESTING TO GO TO R5.

IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF R5 CLASSIFICATION.

PARCEL IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NEEDMORE AND THRUSH DRIVE.

IT HAS A SMALL PIECE ON LARK DRIVE.

TED KCITY COUNCIL WARD NO. 9. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS THIS

[01:15:06]

THIS IS NEEDMORE ROAD HEADED WESTBOUND LOOKING AT THRUSH DRIVE ON YOUR RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THE SIGN RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. HERE'S THE CURRENT HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY LOOKING FROM FLUSH DRIVE, LOOKING BACK THRUSH DRIVE, NEEDMORE ROAD, PROPERTY ON THE RIDE.

ANOTHER ADJACENT HOME ON NEEDMORE ROAD.

THEN LOOKING BACK EAST ON NEED NEEDMORE ROAD.

COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS, STREET DEPARTMENT SAID ACCESS WOULD BE FROM THRUSH DRIVE ONLY, RESERVE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE NEEDMORE ROAD WIDENING.

ALSO IDENTIFYING THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMENTS ABOUT SCHOOLS LISTED. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 46 UNITS, THE APPLICANT PLAN SHOWED 45 UNITS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

THE PROPOSAL R5 IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT PRAMENT. DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

R1A WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE EXAMPLE OF INCREASING DENSITY WITHOUT AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE REASON IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S CLEARLY A TRENTON ROAD R4C5 AND THEN A BREAK TO A LARGER R1 NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST. THAT'S WHERE STAFF MADE THEIR DETERMINATION THAT PRETTY MUCH THAT LINE OF HOMES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THRUSH DRIVE IS THE LINE BETWEEN THE HIGH DENSITY AND THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD OUT THERE. ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE. RESERVATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR WIDENING THE NEEDMORE ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED.

AND DRAINAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO

RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: COULD YOU GO TO PAGE 127, BACK UP TO THE. SO IT EVERYBODY WOULD LOOK AT THAT. NOW BACK TO THE PICTURES THAT I BROUGHT IN, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS ON RUBY DRIVE, YOU CAN SEE THE WATER. THE FIRST HOMES WHERE THE WATER IS RUNNING BETWEEN THE YARDS, THAT'S COMING FROM RUBY DRIVE INTO THIS LOT. AND THEN WHEN YOU COME OVER, FOR INSTANCE, TO THE NEXT SIDE, WHERE IT SAYS LARK DRIVE OPPOSITE, YOU SEE SO THE SECOND PICTURE IN THE SECOND ROW, THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM LARK DRIVE BUT IT WILL EVENTUALLY GO UNDER THE ROAD. THE PROBLEM IS, THE CULVERT UNDER THE ROAD ON LARK DRIVE IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH.

IT IS AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD. IT HAS GOTTEN -- THE WATER -- IT TAKES LONGER FOR THE WATER. AND THEN IF YOU GO DOWN AND LOOK ABBACK AT THIS MAP, THE SMALL SLIVER OF PROPERTY THERE BETWEEN RIGHT ACROSS FROM PEA RIDGE ROAD, YOU SEE THIS HOME THAT WE ARE CONSTRUCTING THAT IS SITTING IN THE WATER.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE WATER RUNS RIGHT TO THAT HOME, LAST FOUR PICTURES ARE THE WATER RUNNING ON TO THAT THIN LOT WHERE THEY ARE NOW BUILDING A HOME. SO WE ARE BUILDING A HOME ON A WATERWAY ON A FLOOD. ALLOWING THAT.

THE TWO PICTURES BEFORE THAT ARE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BEFORE IT RAINS. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS -- THEY HAVE COME TO SEE ME AND THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THIS.

I HOPE THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT RPC AND VOTE AGAINST THIS.

>> MAYOR: THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. NOT ONLY WAS THIS VOTED FOR DISAPPROVAL BY THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR ALL OF US VOTED.

FOR ME, IT WAS -- FOR ONE, THE DRAINAGE ISSUES JUST REFERENCED BY MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBER. THEY DID TALK ABOUT BUILDING A RETENTION POND AND STATED IT MAY TAKE SOME OF THE WATER OFF.

MAY IS AS FAR AS THEY WERE WILLING TO GO ON THAT.

BUT ANOTHER REALLY BIG FACTOR FOR ME WAS EXACTLY WHAT MR. TYNDALL TALKED ABOUT, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE PICTURE OF IT AND YOU SAW THAT EVERY BIT OF THE ZONING AROUND IT IS R1.

I MEAN, IT IS VERY OBVIOUS OF IT.

[01:20:03]

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I FOUND ONE, MR. TYNDALL, THAT I AM JUST NOT FEELING GOOD ABOUT IT. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

THIS IS PROBABLY LIKE A DING-DONG.

R5 IS -- WE DON'T SEE THAT A LOT, RIGHT?

>> R5 IS VERY SIMILAR TO R4. 16 UNITS AN ACRE BUT THEY HAVE TO BE SIDE BY SIDE, NOT VERTICAL.

SO TOWNHOUSES. YOU CAN'T BUILD AN APARTMENT BUILDING. ALSO REQUIRES A FEW OTHER MINOR THINGS. THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU DID MENTION THE DRAINAGE IN WHY THE STAFF RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL, LIKE SLIGHTLY.

AND WE DISCUSSED WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE EARLIER THIS EVENING THAT A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE -- WE TALK ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME, ACTUALLY. WHEN WE IMPROVE THESE AREAS OR WE BUILD IN THESE AREAS, A LOT OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES GET FIXED. MY QUESTION IS, SINCE YOU GUYS CITED DRAINAGE AS A REASON FOR THE DISAPPROVAL, DO YOU FEEL LIKE BUILDING ON THIS IS GOING TO EXACERBATE RATHER THAN REMEDY

THE DRAINAGE ISSUES? >> SO I WILL CORRECT MYSELF BY SAYING IT IS NOT ONE OF THE REASONS WE DISAPPROVED IT.

IT IS JUST NOTED THAT THERE IS A DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. ALERTING THE APPLICATOR THE APPLICANT OR THEOWNER THAT THERL MONEY TORQU TO BE SPENT ON THIS.

UNLESS IT WAS ALL IN A FLOODPLAIN, WHERE THAT WAS OUR SOLE REASON, THE FLOODING HERE IS KIND OF SECONDARY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE KNOW THAT WITH ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY AND IF THE ENGINEERS CAN, THEY CAN HELP ASSIST IT.

AS THE COUNCILWOMAN SAID, THE APPLICANT STATED MORE OF A MAY RATHER THAN YES WE CAN ATTITUDE TO FIXING THE DRAINAGE OUT THERE. I THINK IT IS BIGGER THAN JUST

THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. >> THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ME UNDERSTANDING YOU AND NOT YOU. I MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN HEARING MYSELF. SO YOU ANSWERED MY OTHER QUESTION. I WILL JUST -- FOR CONFIRM IT FOR PERM PERPETUITY. YOU WANT TO KEEP THE SANK AT TSANCTITY OFTHE R1. THAT'S THE BIGGEST REASON.

>> IN THOSE TERMS, YES. >> IN MY TERMS.

THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL. >> MAYOR: OKAY, NOW READY FOR

ITEM 15, ORDINANCE 136-2021-22. >> I WILL NOTE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF LETTERS ATTACHED TO THAT FILE IN YOUR IPADS.

WE ARE GETTING THERE. THIS IS APPLICATION Z43, 2022, APPLICATION OF NORMA JERLE SERS. S.

TODD MORRIS IS THE AGENT. CURRENTLY ZONED C5, REQUESTED TO GO TO R4. THIS IS JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. IT IS AN EXTENSION OF R4.

A TRACT OF LAND ON NEEDMORE ROAD.

CITY WARD NO. 9. THE APPLICANT STATEMENT IS FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROPERTY HAS TWO PREVIOUS ZONING CASES FROM 2001 AND 2003, WHICH PREVIOUS ONE ESTABLISHED THE C5 ON THE PROPERTY. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS, IT WILL REQUIRE OFF SITE GRAVITY SEWER EXTENSION.

THE STREET DEPARTMENT SAID ONLY ONE ACCESS TO NEEDMORE ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED AND RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION FOR THE FUTURE WIDENING OF NEEDMORE ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED.

NO OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. YOU CAN SEE THE S SCHOOL SYSTEM COMMENTS. LOOKING FROM TRENTON ROAD, PROPERTY ON YOUR LEFT. FROM ACROSS THE STREET, BACK TOWARD THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, MAMARATHON. LOOKING FROM THEIR EXIT BACK TOWARD NEEDMORE ROAD, PROPERTY ON THE LEFT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. R4 DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND PROPERTIES.

THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN ENCOURAGES DESIRABLE MIXTURE OF

[01:25:02]

NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED.

>> .RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >> MAYOR: SEEING NONE, WE ARE

READY FOR NO. 16. >> PLANNING COMMISSION CASE ZO1- 2022, THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE. THIS WAS INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TWO MONTHS AGO AND STAFF RETURNED THIS UPDATE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AND I CAN GIVE YOU ACTUALLY A CHART IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT SHOWS YOU THIS MORE IN GENERAL. WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED TO DO AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS IS, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR LOTS RIGHT NOW, R1 IS 90-FOOT, R2, 80 FEET.

WE HAVE NO LOT WI WIDTHS BETWEE5 AND 60.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF R6, IT SHOULD BE USED FOR INFILL PURPOSES. WHAT WE PROPOSE TO DO HERE IS REDUCE THE LOT WIDTH OF R2A DOWN 10 FEET, REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT FIGHT BY ONE THOUSAND FEET SO IT CAN BE MORE OF WHAT WE CONSIDER A SUBURBAN INFILL LOT, MORE A GENTLE DENSITY CHANGE INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE MORE DRAGS DRASTIC. IT REMOVES SOME OF THE UNKNOWN.

YOU GET R6, I KNOW IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO OR MAYBE I AM NOT QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, BUT I WILL GO ALONG WITH IT.

YOU KNOW IT CAN GO DOWN TO 25 FEET.

THIS IS A 40-FOOT WIDE LOT ALLOW THE BUILDERS BUILT UP TO A 3 30-WIDEFOOT WIDE HOME. WE WILL HAVE SIDEWALKS SIMILAR TO R6 IN ORDER TO HELP THE SMALLER LOTS HAVE PEDESTRIAN CONCONNECTIVITY. THAT COULD BE WAIVED BY THE STREET DEPARTMENT WITH CAUSE, AS IS R6.

AND THEN SETBACKS COULD ALSO BE REDUCED DOWN TO TEN FEET FROM THE FRONT IF YOU HAVE AN ALLEY LOADED OR REAR LOADED LOT.

THAT'S ALSO SIMILAR TO R6. SO THEY CAN GO DOWN TO ZERO FEET. STILL KEEPING MORE OF A SUBURBANS FEEL BUT ALLOWING THE SLIGHT DENSITY INCREASE FOR SOME OF THESE INFILLING AREAS THAT MAYBE ABSENTER IN THE ARE NOT IL AREAS OF DOWNTOWN, PROVIDENCE AND OTHERS.

WE WENT TO THE R6 SECTION BASED ON COMMENTS WE HAVE HEARD OVER SEVERAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ABOUT R6 NOT HAVING CERTAIN AMENITIES. WE HAVE NOW ALLOWED PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, STUDIO ART, DANCE, MUSIC AND HEALTH AND MASSAGE STUDIOS, SWIMMING POOLS, BATH HOUSES, PAR SONAGES, PLAYHOUSES, EMERGENCY SERVICES AND TEMPORARY BUILDINGS AND USES ARE ALL NOW EITHER PERMITTED OR ACCESSORY OR PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THEIR OTHER RESIDENTIAL COUNTERPARTS IN THE ZONING CODE. SO THAT -- IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF'S OPINION, IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU YOU CAN'T HAVE A POOL, IT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR LOT OR YOUR OWN DECISION WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO HAVE A POOL.

BESIDES THAT, ONE CLEAN UP SECTION IN THE PUD SECTION, A CLEANUP THERE ON THE R ROADS. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION ON THIS SET OF AMENDMENTS.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: DOES THIS MEAN IF A BUILDER COMES TO US WITH A R6, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO AMEND IT TO THIS NEW ZONE? OR IS THAT -- THAT'S NOW IT WORKS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MR. BAKER ABOUT THAT.

THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE RIGHT TO DO IT, IT IS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE, YOU SHOULD ONLY USE THAT FOR WHEN IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TIME TO CHANGE A ZONE OF A PROPERTY.

YOU ARE ACTING A PETITION THAT SOMEONE BROUGHT YOU, SO TO TURN IT TO SOMETHING ELSE KIND OF -- THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEN SAY, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AND -- I WOULD HAVE TO GO MORE OF A LEGAL

OPINION ON THAT ONE. >> COUNCILPERSON: BECAUSE R6 IS MORE MONEY BUT WE MAY NOT WANT THEM TO DO IT IN THAT AREA.

SO IT WOULD PREVENT FROM ACTUALLY DENYING AND HAVING THEM TO PAY AGAIN. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. WE SENT THIS ORDINANCE OUT TO ALL OUR SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERING, THIS IS COMING.

I HAD ONE CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF THEM.

WE HOPE THAT THEY -- THEY ARE THE FIRST LINE OF WHEN SOMEONE COMES AND WANTS TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY, THEY FIND AN

[01:30:02]

>> OKAY. I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE R2A.

>> I WILL GET YOU A LEGAL ANSWER ON THAT.

>> I WOULD LIKE ONE, THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MR., THANK YOU, MR. MINUTE DAL. TYNDALL.THE R2A BRINGING THE LE DOWN. FOR AN I CAN ACRE OF LAND, BRING THE SIZE DOWN TO 5,000. FROM 6,000 TO 5,000?

>> IT REALLY ONLY ADDS ABOUT 10% MORE UNITS OR ONE MORE HOME PER ACRE. WHAT IT DOES, IT ALLOWS NARROW LOTS, NOT TO HAVE 50-FOOT WIDE. 100-FOOT WIDE OF ROAD, RIGHT NOW, YOU WOULD NEED 120 TO HAVE THREE LOTS UNDER THIS R2A OR 150 UNDER THE OLD RULE FOR THREE LOTS.

IT JUST ALLOWS THIS TRANSITION FROM R3 AND R4 LOTS TO, INSTEAD OF GOING TO R6, MAYBE R2A IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE ZONE.

>> SO WITH THE SMALLER LOTS, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO PUT SOME AMENITIES OR ACCESSORIES ON THIS LOT? BRINGING IT DOWN VERSUS KEEPING IT AT 6,000 SQUARE FEET?

>> IT IS REALLY NEGLIGIBLE CHANGE.

6,000 IS SMALLEST CLUSTER LOT YOU SEE IN OUR SUBDIVISIONS.

LOSS OF TEN FEET IS WIDTH IS ALL YOU WILL SEE.

DEPTH IS 120 TO 125 FEET. THE SETBACKS STAY THE SAME.

THOSE USES OF POOLS AND THINGS ARE ALREADY IN R2A, WE ARE NOT

TOUCHING THAT. >> THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I

HAVE RIGHT NOW, THANK YOU, SIR. >> MAYOR: MR. TYNDALL, THAT SEEMS AWFUL SMALL. WE GET ANY SMALLER, YOU WILL HAVE TO GO DOWN THE STREET TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.

TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS -- WE ARE REALLY PUSHING IT THERE.

>> WE FEEL IT IS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN R2 AND R6.

BUT THERE IS TOO BIG OF A GAP. BETWEEN 25-FOOT.

A LOT OF THE R6 LOTS ARE COMING IN AROUND 35 FEET.

SO THIS IS REALLY CLOSE TO WHAT THIS COULD BE AND MAYBE WE CAN NUDGE THEM WHERE IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE TO DO THIS.

>> OKAY. >> COUNCILPERSON SMITH.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR, MR. TYNDALL, YOU HAD SAID THAT -- SO THIS IS ALSO GOING TO INCLUDE THE ACCESSORIES,

AMENITIES FOR R6 AS WELL? >> YES.

>> SO YOU PUT TWO TOGETHER, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? SO YOU CAN GET IT PASSED OR WHAT?

>> NO, IT IS JUST REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ORDINANCES YOU HAVE TO SEE BEFORE YOU. IF WE DID AN ORDINANCE FOR EVERY SINGLE CHANGE INDIVIDUALLY. IT WOULD BE THAT MUCH MORE WORK AND PAPERWORK. WHEN WE OPEN THE ORDINANCE, IT TAKES AN ADVERTISEMENT, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND TWO READINGS HERE JUST LIKE A ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO WHEN WE HAVE CHANGES TO MAKE, WE WILL PUT THEM TOGETHER AND COMPILE THEM INTO ONE ORDINANCE CHANGE.

SOMETIMES IT AS SIMPLE AS WHEN WE DID THE HISTORIC OVERLAY, THAT WAS ONE THAT HAD ONE PURPOSE.

BUT OFTEN WE HAVE A LIST OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OR HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND WE TRY TO FIX

THEM AT ONE TIME. >> WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ORDINANCE FOR R2A BY ITSELF? WE HAVE TO HAVE SEPARATION SO WE HAVE CLARITY. THIS CONFUSES ME.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE. BUT IN ORDER TO AMEND AN ORDINANCE, THIS PERTAINS TO UPDATES.

WHAT ARE THE UPDATES TO R2A? THAT NEEDS TO BE SEPARATE.

THEN PUT THE R6 ON BY ITSELF. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM TO SEPARATE THOSE. I NEED TO SEE THE DEFINITION FOR

CLARITY ON THESE. >> SURE.

I WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A RED LINE COPY WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXACT CHANGES. ON PAGE 153 AND 154.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU CAN PROVIDE THE RED LINE COPY. I NEED THE ORDINANCE TO BE SEPARATE. I MIGHT KNOW ON R2A AND YES FOR R6. WE DO WANT TO ADD AMENITIES TO R6. IT IS CONFUSING, YOU ARE DOING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS FOR EACH ZONE.

CAN YOU SEPARATE THAT FOR THE NEXT MEETING?

>> I WILL DEFER TO COUNCIL. I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE --

>> MAYOR: I THINK IT WOULD BE UP TO THE MEMBER TO BRING AN AMENDMENT IF YOU WANTED TO SEPARATE.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I WILL BRING A MOMENT.

[01:35:04]

>> MOTION TO SEPARATE OR DIVIDE. >> MAYOR: WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.

>> COUNCILPERSON: WE NEED TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REDD,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND TO

DIVIDE THE QUESTION. >> MAYOR: REYNOLDS, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> YES, MR. TYNDALL, ON THE R2A, WE DON'T HAVE A SET, LIKE, AFTER SO MANY HOUSES YOU HAVE TO LEAVE GREEN SPACE, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE THAT SET FOR R6

RIGHT NOW? >> ONLY IN OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATION, IF YOU CLUSTER A SUBDIVISION, YOU HAVE TO LEAVE 15% AND A GREEN BUFFER AROUND THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.

ONLY GREEN SPACE REQUIRED FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION.

SEEING NONE, WEARIE WE ARE READR ITEM 17.

>> ONE OF THE DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS LAID OUT IN TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 13104 TO COMPILE AND REVIEW THE CITY AND COUNTY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS. THIS IS JUST A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THEM AND IS PROVIDING THEM BACK SANS COMMENT THIS YEAR.

IT ALLOWS YOU TO THEN TO ADOPT YOUR CIP AFTERWARD.

THAT'S ALL. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYTHING ELSE? >> NOPE.

>> MAYOR: ALL RIGHT. IT IS 6:07.

[2) CONSENT AGENDA ]

>> MAYOR: CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL, NOW AT THE CONSENT AGENDA, MA'AM CLERK, PLEASE REID 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 107-2021-22 SECOND 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. ORDINANCE 108-2021-22 SECOND 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. ORDINANCE 109-2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF RAYMON SHEPPARD, MID STATE INVESTMENTS, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GRACEY AVE. AND WOODLAND STREET FROM R-3 THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 110-2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF JOE A. WINN, JR., JIMMY BAGWELL, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TINY TOWN ROAD & TOWER DRIVE FROM R-1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT/R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ORDINANCE 112-2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF ROBERT W. CLARK, BILL MACE AND TODD HARVEY, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TEMPORARY TERMINUS OF MERCHANTS BOULEVARD FROM C-3 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT TO C-5 HIGHWAY AND ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

ORDINANCE 113-2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, SYD HEDRICK, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF DUMAS DRIVE & ELM HILL DRIVE FROM R-3 THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

ORDINANCE 114-2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF JASON SENSENEY, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROVIDENCE BOULEVARD AND OAK STREET FROM C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO C-5 HIGHWAY & ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 115 -2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF CODY AND TAYLOR DAHL, FOR ZONE CHANGE

[01:40:03]

AND CONROY AVENUE FROM R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND H-1 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT TO OP OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT AND H-1 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT. 9. ORDINANCE 116-2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN HERITAGE PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, JONATHAN ROSS PRESIDENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF E STREET AND OAK STREET FROM O-1 OFFICE DISTRICT TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 117-2021-22 SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF ROY MILLER, MARK HOLLEMAN, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND CITY ROAD AND GLENSTONE BOULEVARD FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 118-2021-22 SECOND ORDINANCE 118-2021-22 SECOND 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 THE PURPOSE OF A SEWER PUMP STATION. RESOLUTION 64-2021-22 APPROVING A RETAIL LIQUOR STORE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SALE OF LIQUOR AT CADDY'S DISCOUNT LIQUORS, 1960 MADISON STREET, SUITE MLL, CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE 37043.

RESOLUTION 66-2021-22 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A RETAIL LIQUOR STORE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SALE OF LIQUOR AT THE WINE CELLAR AND HIDEAWAY, 4 LELAND DRIVE, CLARKSVILLE TENNESSEE 37042 RESOLUTION 67-2021-22 A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKING COMMISSION

[3) FINANCE COMMITTEE]

COMMITTEE REPORT. >> COUNCILPERSON: RESOLUTION 65-2022-22, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE APPROVING AN ECONOMIC IMPACT PLAN FOR THE VULCAN PLANT DEVELOPMENT AREA AND ADOPTING DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT AREA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

A THE FINANCE COMMITTEE VOTED IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL.

COULD WE ASK MR. DILGE TO COME UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT THIS.

>> MR., DELINGER, IF YOU WOULD COME TO THE WELL, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

YOU WILL WALK THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKL QUICKLY.

WE ARE LOOKING AT FOUR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AS MR. TYNDALL SPOKE TO THIS AN I OBJECT EARLIER TO GET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLARKSVILLE 2030 GROWTH PLAN AND COUPLE OF THE LAND USE CONCEPTS THAT ARE OUT THERE, ESPECIALLY IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORE. THE FIRST DISTRICT IS THE VULCAN DISTRICT. WHAT WAS THE CAL CATALYST WAS TE APPROVAL OF THE FROSTY MORE PROPERTY WHICH GAVE US A PROJECT TO ESTABLISH AN ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

ALSO, WE WANT TODAY DO THIS BECAUSE CLARKSVILLE IS BOOMING, WE NEED TO DO MORE GROWTH IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE.

THESE PROPERTIES, ALL OF THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LOCATIONS ARE GATEWAY PROPERTIES THAT FUNNEL FOLKS INTO OUR DOWN TOWER CORE WHERE THE ARENA HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND WE HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO REHAB, REHABILITATE, AND IMPROVE THOSE PROPERTIES. SO WHAT IS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT? THOSE AREAS UNDER UTILIZED, LOCALIZED AREAS CONTAINED AND USUALLY CHALLENGED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DEVELOP NATURALLY. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, SOMETHING THAT IS HOLDING THEM BACK THAT A DEVELOPER CAN'T OVERCOME OR THE OWNER CAN'T OVERCOME SOME ISSUES WITH THAT PROPERTY.

AND THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, HISTORICALLY INDUSTRIAL.

IT IS OLD INDUSTRIAL. IT IS DIFFICULT, VIEMPLETAL ENVL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE OVERCOME. THE ROAD NETWORK IS VERY NARROW IN SOME PLACES. AND THAT'S IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT. THE OTHER DISTRICT WE ARE LOOKING AT MOSTLY IN FLOOD ZONES AND WE HAVE TO OVERCOME THE FLOOD ZONE BY RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE BUILDINGS AND FINDING OTHER AREAS TO PUT -- TAKE THE FLOOD ZONE AREA TO INCREASE FLOOD ZONES DOWNSTREAM. THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. MA'AM CLEMADAM CLERK.

[01:45:05]

I CAN'T SEE IT ON MY WRITING BUT YOU CAN SEE WHERE YOUR FROSTYM FROSTYMORN IS. THE AREA IN THE BIG ONE, THE RIGHT OFF COLLEGE STREET IS THE VULCAN PROPERTY, UNDER CONTRACT, AS WELL AS -- WE WANT TO IMPROVE THAT AREA, I AM STREET SCAPES, IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION THAT WOULD SUPPORT THIS AND WIDEN THE SIDEWALKS, IMPROVE ANY OF THE ONMENTAL LIGHTS THAT COULD GO UP AND DOWN COLLEGE STREET AND BUILD -- FUNNEL INTO THE AUSTIN PEAY AREA. WHEN WE LOOK AT 55 ACRES, WE BELIEVE THIS AREA CAN BE SUPPORT MORE THAN $300 MILLION OF IMPROVED DEVELOPMENT. SO WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF A DISTRICT? WE WILL LOOK AT THIS AS ONE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS OPPOSED TO EACH PARCEL BEING DEVELOPED ONE AT A TIME. WE CAN INCORPORATE PUBLIC GOODS AND BENEFITS INTO THIS, STREET SCAPES, PARKS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCESS THAT RIGHT NOW IS NOT ACCESSIBLE IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. AND IT CAN BE A CAT CATALYST FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH IN THIS VICINITY.

IT IS LOW RISK FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

ANY INCENTIVES THAT WE PUT INTO THIS PROPERTY OR INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT, THOSE INCENTIVES ARE GIVEN AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT IS EXECUTED. IT IS USUALLY A REBATE ON SOME OF THE TAXES THAT ARE PAID. SO THERE'S NO MONEY GOING IN UP FRONT. AND THE PUBLIC GETS WHAT WE WANT IN A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AS WE PUT THE DEAL TOGETHER WITH THE DEVELOPER OR OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.

ANOTHER BENEFIT OF THIS IS ANY ADDITIONAL TACKS THAT ARE CREATED BY DEVELOPING THIS AREA, THE FIRST IN THIS CASE 27% GOES TO PAY DOWN CITY AND COUNTY DEBT BECAUSE THE FIRST -- SO THAT ADDS MORE DOLLARS TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT THAT THE -- FOR ANY OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE FUNDED THROUGH THE DEBT WITH THE CITY OR THE COUNTY. FOR THE DEVELOPER, ONLY ELIGIBLE EXPENSES ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE REPAID.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS ALL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, PARKING, ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REHAB, DEMOLITION, CONNECTION WITH UTILITIES, SIDEWALKS. SO ANY DOLLARS THAT GO BACK TO A DEVELOPER UP TO 15% OF THE PROJECT CAN GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPER. ONLY THING THAT IS ELIGIBLE ARE THOSE PUBLIC THAT ARE ACCESSED TO THE PUBLIC AND FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. THE TERM FOR EACH PROJECT IS 20 YEARS. THE TERM FOR THIS DISTRICT WILL BE 30 YEARS. SO IT GIVES US TEN YEARS TO PUT THIS TOGETHER TO GET THE PROJECTS IN MOTION AND THEN IT GIVES THE DEVELOPER, OWNER, 20 YEARS TO RECOUP THE BENEFIT OR THE INCENTIVES OVER THE TERM OF THAT PROJECT.

BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THIS AND THE FACT THAT IT CAN HANDLE UP TO 300 MILLION, OVER $300 MILLION OF DEVELOPMENT, WE WILL BE ASKING FOR A 35 MILLION-DOLLAR CAP OF INCENTIVES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED BACK TO DEVELOPERS OR OWNERS OVER THAT 30-YEAR PERIOD. ONCE THOSE -- THE ANY INCENTIVES ARE PAID BACK TO THE DEVELOPER, CURRENT OWNER, THEN THE PROPERTY TAXES GO UP TO THE FULL APPRAISED AND ASSESSED VALUE.

SO I WE WENT THROUGH THAT PRETTY QUICKLY, SUBJECT TO ANY QUESTIONS. I'M EAGER TO ANSWER.

>> MAYOR: THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MR. DELINGER ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY WAS IN REFERENCE TO DEVELOPING THIS AS A DISTRICT VERSUS LETTING THIS DEVELOP NATURALLY ONE UNIT AT A TIME WAS THAT IT WOULD BE ONE PLAN VERSUS 80 PLANS. CAN YOU KIND OF TALK A LITTLE

BIT ABOUT THAT. >> SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS ENTIRE 55 ACRES, THE ARCHITECT, BRAD MARTIN IS THE ARCHITECT THAT WE HAVE UNDER CONTRACT TO LOOK AT THIS, HE IS GOING TO DEVELOP THIS AS A WHOLE CONCEPT, WHOLE PLAN.

AND THE TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE SET FOR THE WHOLE AREA.

SO THAT THE STOPLIGHTS, THE ACCESS, THE WIDTH OF THE ROADS, THE WIDTHS OF THE LANES WOULD ALL SUPPORT FULL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THERE IS ONE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, TRAFFIC PLAN, NOT 80 SEPARATE PLANS THAT WOULD DEVELOP AS THEY CAME IN OVER TIME. AND CASE IN POINT IS WI WILMA RUDOLPH, THERE ARE 97 CURB CUTS ON WILMA RUDOLPH.

[01:50:06]

>> COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS. >> MR. DELINGER, I APPRECIATE THIS AS WELL, IT IS GREAT. WE HAVE BEEN CONTACTING EACH OTHER BACK AND FORTH THROUGH E-MAIL.

AND MY QUESTION WAS THAT WE WOULD SET ASIDE A PERCENTAGE OF THE HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE AT 15% SET ASIDE FOR LOW INCOME, SO AFFORDABLE WITH A BIG A HOUSING, NOT LITTLE A, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, WHAT DO YOU SEE FOR THE MECHANICS. YOU SAID YOU WERE WORKING WITH LEGAL. COULD YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE WE

ARE AT WITH THAT. >> IT IS ALSO A BENEFIT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO EACH ONE OF OUR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, WE CAN INCENTIVIZE THROUGH THE INCENTIVES THAT THE DEVELOPER PUT SOME PORTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS MULTIFAMILY. IF IT IS JUST COMMERCIAL, WE HAVE GOT TO FIND OTHER IN LIEU OF TYPE BENEFITS.

WE WANT TO BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A 30-YEAR PLAN.

I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ONE CASE IN PARTICULAR WHERE THE DEVELOPER PRESENTED ONE MILLION DOLLAR CASH TO THE LOCAL PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY TO INCREASE WORKFORCE AND HOUSING IN THEIR RAD CONVERSION RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THIS PROJECT -- WHERE THEY PROJECT WAS GOING IN. SO AS LONG AS WE CAN HAVE FLEXIBILITY AND IT IS ALWAYS A BENEFIT THAT WE DO WANT TO PUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ALL OUR DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. SO WE ARE WORKING THROUGH WITH OUR LEGAL TO FIND A RIGHT KIND OF WORDS TO GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY TO BRING IN 15% IS THE VALUE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. WE HAVE GOT TO WORK THROUGH TO SAY WHAT IS OUR IN LIEU OF PROCESS TO BE FULLY TRANSPARENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES. SO EVERYONE CAN SEE WHEN THE I DB AS IDEC WOULD BE DOING TO FIND A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND FOR THE DEVELOPER AND FOR THE COMMUNITY.

>> COUNCILPERSON: AND WILL YOU PRESENT THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO

THIS NEXT WEEK? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COLONEL? THANK YOU.

CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ORDINANCE 121-21-22 FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CITY SHALL ADOPT HOME RULE COUNCILPERSON BUTLER. FINANCE VOTED FOR RECOMMENDATION

OF DISAPPROVAL. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN YELLING THIS FROM MY SEAT FOR THE LAST YEAR.

I DO WANT TO SAY I DID NOT MAKE TO THE FINANCE MEETING.

I SENT OUT EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES.

I APOLOGIZED AND I STILL FEEL REALLY GUILTY ABOUT IT.

SO I DO APOLOGIZE THAT I WASN'T THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

I DID ASK THE CLERK TO MAKE SURE THAT REGARDLESS OF THE SUGGESTION FROM FINANCE THAT IT WOULD COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT IS ON A PRETTY STRICT TIMELINE.

I THINK WE HAVE ABOUT A MONTH BUFFER RIGHT NOW.

BECAUSE IT HAS TO GO TO MISS BLACK, I BLACK.

WE GET TO CHANGE OUR CHARTER HERE AT THE CITY LEVEL AFTER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE OF CLARKSVILLE TO VOTE ON AMENDMENTS TO OUR CHARTER. I THINK THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE ARE SUCH A BIG CITY. OUT OF THE FIVE BIGGEST CITIES OF WHICH WE ARE FIVE, THREE OF THEM HAVE HOME RULE CHARTERS, THAT INCLUDES KNOXVILLE, CHATTANOOGA AND MEMPHIS.

I BELIEVE MEMPHIS ADOPTED IT IN '96.

SO IT ESSENTIALLY JUST SAYS WE CAN MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS FOR CLARKSVILLE RATHER THAN THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD GET MORE OF A VOTE AND WHAT WE ARE DOING UP HERE. I THINK THAT THAT'S BASICALLY

[01:55:02]

THERE ARE ALREADY LIGHTS ON, SO I WILL SHIFT OVER BECAUSE, HONESTLY, THIS IS A DECISION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AS A BODY.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

ZACHARIAS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR INITIATING THIS CONVERSATION.

IT IS IMPORTANT AND I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT:I NORMALLY SAVE MY REMARKS FOR THE VOTING SESSION.

IN THIS CASE, I WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS AND GIVE THE SPONSOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A RESPONSE AT NEXT WEEK'S REGULAR VOTING SESSION. THIS ORDINANCE ASKS US TO CONSIDER A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE CURRENT PROCESS IN PLACE FOR AMENDING OR CITY'S CHARTER, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY OUR CONSTITUTION. IF THIS ORDINANCE AND SUBSEQUENT BALLOT MEASURE PASSES, CHANGES TO THE CHARTER WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE DURING A CITY GENERAL ELECTION.

I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THIS ORDINANCE COULD CREATE. FIRST, I DON'T KNOW THAT I LIKE THE IDEA OF POLITICIZING OUR CITY'S CHARTER.

WE HAVE SEEN ELECTIONS WHERE THE EHUD OLONE SIDE OUT SPENDS THE .

CAMPAIGN SPENDING, THE SIDE THAT RAISES AND SPENDS MORE MONEY IS NINE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO WIN. DO WE REALLY WANT TO CREATE A SPENDING ARMS RACE FOR THE SIDE THAT SPENDS THE MOST ON SIGNS AND MAILERS AND PHONE CALLS GETS TO CONTROL NOT ONLY THE POWER BUT THE LIMITATIONS ON POWER, GIVEN TO THE CITY IN ITS FOUNDING DOCUMENT. THE PROCESS FOR CHANGING A FOUNDING DOCUMENT IS CUMBERSOME BY DESIGN.

IT PREVENTS RASH DECISIONS AND EMOTIONAL RESPONSES.

IMAGINE HOW OUR NATION'S CONSTITUTION COULD HAVE BEEN ALTERED AT THE BALLOT BOX AFTER 9/11, SANDY HOOK, AND RECENTLY IN TEXAS. I ACKNOWLEDGE TWO SIDES TO THE COIN. I BELIEVE IT IS A NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT THAT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Z DOES NOT INCLUDE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN. INCIDENTALLY, OUR ST OWN STATE S NOT IMMUNE FROM CRITICISM. IN 1974, THE STATE OF TENNESSEE ATTEMPTED TO REPEAL THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT.

OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR PATRIOTS ACT PASSED INTO LAW TWO MONTHS AFTER 9/11. THAT SUPPORT FADED OVER TIME AND MANY OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN WALKED OUT OR THROWN OUT COMPLETELY.

THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF THAT LAW HAD BEEN CODIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, IN THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT.

I KNOW THESE ARE NATIONAL ISSUES.

THE ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED IS A LOCAL ISSUE.

ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THE TIMELINE FOR THIS ORDINANCE.

IF THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED, QUESTION PUT TO VOTERS IN NOVEMBER. I THINK THE SIMPLICITY OF THE QUESTION SHOULD CLARKSVILLE ADOPT HOME RULE BEE LIES THE GRAVITY OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION.

HOW MANY OF THE VOTERS UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT QUESTION IS ASKING? HOW MANY OF THE COUNCIL UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT QUESTION IS ASKING.

ASSUMING THIS PASSES FIRST READING IN JUNE, SECOND RECEIPTING IN JULY, THREE MONTHS TO INFORM AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC. WE SPENT MORE TIME COLLECTING FEEDBACK ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE FROSTY MORN SITE THAN WE ARE LEAVING OURSELVES FOR THIS. IF AND WHEN THIS IS PUT TO A VOTE, WE NEED TO HAVE DONE EVERYTHING TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ACCURATELY CAPTURING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

NEXT CITY GENERAL ELECTION COINCIDES WITH MIDTERM NATIONAL ELECTIONS WHICH TRADITIONALLY SEES LOWER VOTER TURNOUT THAN ELECTIONS GO TO THE POLLS TO CHOOSE THE PRESIDENT.

DURING THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION, MONTGOMERY COUNTY SAW 59% OF REGISTERED VOTERS CAST BALLOTS.

AND 2018, THE LAST MIDTERM ELECTION VOTERS TURNOUT WAS 47%.

WHICH ACTUALLY A HUGE INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS MIDTERM ELECTIONS WHERE FEWER THAN 30% OF REGISTERED VOTERS CAST BALLOTS. ALL THESE NUMBERS CAME FROM THE ELECTION COMMISSION. THIS IS TOO BIG TO GET WRONG.

WE NEED THE HIGHEST VOTER TURNOUT POSSIBLE AND WE NEED VOTERS TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER. SO AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE COUNCIL. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO IT.

I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT RUSHING TO FAILURE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AND DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR CLARKSVILLE AND CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID.

BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT LAST SUMMER OR SINCE WE HAVE WOR WORKED ON EL P AMENDIA CHEART,CHARTER, YOU WERE PUT INE

[02:00:04]

NOW HERE WE ARE WITHOUT A CONVERSATION MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS CHANGE OF CHARTER. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SIGNALED THIS. BUT REALLY THIS, AS A PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, THIS IS A LOT OF CONVERSATION, A LOT OF EDUCATION. I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO IT BUT I AGREE WITH HIS TIMING. I WANT TO ADD ONE MORE STATISTIC TO HIS. IN AUGUST OF 2020, THE VOTER TURNOUT WAS 17.45%. AND THEN IN NOVEMBER, IT WAS 5.64%. OUR VOTER TURNOUT IN MAY THIS YEAR WAS 8.12%. I DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD SPRING THIS ON OUR CONSTITUENTS WITHOUT A LOT OF EDUCATION.

I MEAN, I HAVE TO GET EDUCATED AND I WOULD NOT HAVE TIME TO TURN AROUND AND GET THE VOTE OUT.

SO THEN VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR COMMUNITY WOULD BE MAKING THIS VERY, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DECISION.

IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS, I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE 2024. WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS. THE TIMELINE IS TOO SHORT.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN WORKING EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY FOR SINCE WE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED.

WE HAVE BEEN A PRIVATE ACT CHARTER FOR A LONG TIME.

THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGE TO THE PAST MADE TO THE CHARTER.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL THAT SAT DOWN, CRAFTED CHANGES THEY WANTED TO SEE. A LOT OF TIME, RESEARCH, EFFORT INTO IT. AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE ARE ELECTED TO DO. AT THAT POINT, IT WAS THEN SENT TO THE STATE. THE STATE APPROVED IT AND IT CAME BACK AND COUNCIL APPROVED IT AGAIN.

IT WAS THE -- THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT WORKED TOGETHER TO CREATE THE CHANGES THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE.

AND THAT WAY IT CAN BE ENSURED THAT IT PASSED THROUGH.

AND WE ARE ALL TASKED WITH DOING THE RESEARCH, PUTTING THE TIME, EFFORT, ENERGY INTO DOING OUR JOBS TO ENSURE THAT WE BEST SERVE OUR CITIZENS. THAT'S WHAT THE VOTERS HAVE ELECTED US TO DO. AND ONE POINT I MADE DURING THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW HOME RULE WORKED, WHAT HAPPENS SHOULD THIS GO THROUGH, WHAT HAPPENS BEHIND THAT? HOW DOES THE CHARTER WORK AT THAT POINT? I JUST WANTED TO POINT ALL OF YOU WHAT I POINTED OUT TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

WHEN WE ARE IN THESE MEETINGS, WHEN WE ARE AT OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS DISCUSSING THINGS, WHEN WE ARE IN COUNCIL MEETINGS, FACED WITH MAKING A VOTE, WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY RIGHT HERE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT A CITY ATTORNEY CAN BE AT EVERY SINGLE PRECINCT, AT EVERY SINGLE VOTING STATION TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE CITIZENS.

THAT WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EDUCATION TO GET OUT THERE TO THEM WHEN THEY HAVE ELECTED US TO BE ABLE TO EDUCATE OURSELVES AND TO TALK TO THEM AND LEARN BEST FROM THEM HOW WE CAN SERVE THEM. THOSE THE COMMENTS I HAVE TO

MAKE TONIGHT. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: I FOLLOW THE SENTIMENTS OF THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN.

I WOULD SAY, AS I SAID IN THE MEETING, WE NEED TO STUDY THIS AS COUNCIL PERSONS. WE CAN'T JUST RUSH SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE WE WANT TO SAY YES. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE, EXAMINE, STUDY, RESEARCH.

THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT ENTITIES TO LOOK INTO.

BEFORE WE PASS THIS, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO STUDY THIS MYSELF.

AND I HAVE NOT GATHERED QUITE THE MAGNITUDE OF INFORMATION TRYING TO STUDY THIS, I HAVE NOT GATHERED WHAT IT IS REALLY TRYING TO SAY. HERE I HAVE, I HAVE ALL THESE DEGREES, STILL TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT.

SO UNLESS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE GOT TO INVESTIGATE SOMETHING.

YOU DON'T JUST PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

WE HAVE TO EDUCATE OURSELVES BEFORE WE GO TO OUR CONSTITUENTS. HOME RULE, I AM NOT AGAINST IT.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER RULES THAT I AM NOT AGAINST.

BUT I NEED TO INVESTIGATE, EXAMINE AND STUDY THIS BEFORE WE PUT THIS FOR A VOTE. THANK YOU FOR THINKING ABOUT IT.

WARD 12, BUT RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE NEED TO WAIT.

IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF OUR CITIZENS AND FOR THIS CITY.

BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING A BIG DECISION HERE.

WE CAN'T JUST PUT IT FORTH AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

RICHMOND, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK, MAYOR.

I AGREE AS WELL WITH MANY OF THE SENTIMENTS PREVIOUSLY.

[02:05:02]

AND ECHO THAT SENTIMENT. RUSHING TO FAILURE, REALIZING THESE ARE SOME VERY EMOTIONALLY CHARGED STATEMENTS AS WELL.

SITTING IN THIS SEAT, THERE'S A SAYING IN SALES.

A CONFUSED MIND DOESN'T BUY. I'M LEANING TOWARD THE SENTIMENT OF I DON'T QUITE GET IT. I HAVE REQUESTED IN THE PAST THAT WE HAVE WORKSHOPS AND I WILL LEAN IN AND DO MORE INVESTIGATING ON HOW TO GET THAT WRITTEN UP.

I'M CONCERNED WE DON'T CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE WE GO CHANGING IT. AND BEFORE CHANGING, I WOULD LOVE TO -- MY SOLE RESPONSIBILITY THE THREE AND A HALF YEARS I HAVE BEEN HERE IS TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. AND THAT IS A TASK UNTO ITSELF.

SO IN ORDER FOR ME TO BEGIN TO LEAN IN ON BEHALF OF CONSTITUENTS, I THINK A PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, DEGREED AND STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING, THAT IS A -- IN ALL OF OUR GETTING, WE NEED TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING. YEAH, JUST AS A MASTERS EDUCATION, WHAT, HUH? GEEK SPEAK, POLITICAL HE? I SPEAK?I JUST WANT TO SEE SOMETHG PLAIN THAT A 10-YEAR-OLD HERE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY COULD SAY THAT MAKES SENSE.

IF MOM OR DAD DOESN'T GET IT, II CAN EXPLAIN IT AT A FIFTH GRADE LEVEL TO INCLUDE EVERYONE. I WOULD LOVE THE SPONSOR OF THIS TO BRING BACK SOME MORE PERVASIVE PLAIN-SPEAK CONVERSATION ON WHAT THE BENEFITS OF HOME RULE THAT WOULD OUT WEIGH WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE.

I DON'T KNOW IF I AGREE WITH ANOTHER SENTIMENT FROM ANOTHER SPEAKER ABOUT EVERYTHING BEING REPRESENTATIVE.

I THINK THAT'S WHY WE BRING LEGISLATION THIS TO THE TABLE.

BUT I DEFINITELY WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE SORT OF JUST PLAIN TALK AND HELP THE CITIZENS UNDERSTAND, OKAY, THAT'S CLEAR.

WE AGREE WITH THAT. WE ARE STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH TO A PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S POINT ABOUT CONSOLIDATING THE COUNTY AND CITY. SO THIS IS A BIG GUN.

I THINK WE NEED TO SLOW DOWN AND HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AROUND.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REDD,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I DON'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT HOME RULE BUT I HAVE STUDIED SOME OF IT. JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EVERY QUESTION THAT COULD BE CONCERNING, BY NO MEANS A HOME RULE EXPERT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT THURSDAY I'M JUST GOING TO DISMISS IT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IT NOW. REMEMBER, WE HAVE A FIRST READING. WE WILL ALSO HAVE A SECOND READING AND THERE MAY BE A POSSIBLE, I DON'T KNOW, FROM THE SPONSOR, IF WE POSTPONED IT FOR A MONTH TO LEARN MORE ABOUT IT.

BUT EVIDENTLY, AS THE SPONSOR HAS SAID, SOME OF THE MAJOR CITIES IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE ARE UNDER HOME RULE.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT I CAN TELL, HOME RULE HAS WORKED WELL WHERE THEY ARE AT. I KNOW THAT OUR TAX RATES, IT COULD BE WRITTEN IN THE CHARTER OF OUR HOME RULE COULD BE LEFT TO THE CITIZENS BY REFERENDUM. I THINK THE HOME RULE GIVES MUNICIPALITIES, MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, THAT WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN ORDINANCES IN THE CHARTER AND MAKES OUR DECISIONS BASED ON LOCAL NEEDS RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE OF AN ONE SIZE FITS ALL TYPE THING.

BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS THAT THE LITTLE BIT THAT I HAVE READ ABOUT HOME RULE, I'M NOT JUST GOING TO DISMISS IT OUTRIGHT JUST BECAUST UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING IT SEEMS LIKE BUT THE KITCHEN SINK HAS BEEN THROWN IT FROM THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO OTHER ARGUMENTS THAT -- ALL SEEMS TO BE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, SO I JUST DON'T WANT IT.

I DO KNOW THIS AS WELL, IT WOULD ALSO GO -- IF WE VOTED TO PASS THIS, THIS WOULD ONLY SEND THIS TO THE CITIZENS TO VOTE ON THIS BY REFERENDUM. IT DOES NOT MEAN IT WOULD BE

[02:10:02]

FUL LIKI FEEL LIKE VOTER TURNOUT A GOOD REASON FOR NOT LOOKING AT HOME RULE. WHAT WOULD BE NEXT, LET'S DON'T HAVE AN ELECTION IN THIS MONTH OR IN THAT MONTH OR IN AN OFF YEAR BECAUSE THE VOTER TURNOUT IS BAD? I DON'T QUITE GET THAT ARGUMENT. AGAIN, THE CITIZENS, IF POSSIBLE, I THINK THAT THAT THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BENEFITS OF HOME RULE ARE AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CITIZENS CAN FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY OBJECT TO HOME RULE AND I THINK IF IT WENT ON THE BALLOT, THEY WOULDN'T STAND THERE WITH A BIG QUESTION MARK ON THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD, THEY CAN'T VOTE IT.

BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE IN OTHER CITIES WHERE THE CITIZENS GOT TO VOTE UP AND DOWN ON THE ISSUE OF HOME RULE AND THEY CAN CERTAINLY DO IT HERE. AGAIN, I WILL STUDY SOME MORE INTO THE ISSUE, BETWEEN NOW AND THURSDAY.

I DON'T LIKE THE THOUGHT, LET'S JUST DISMISS IT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND EVERY NUANCE OF IT AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MAYOR >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON MARQUIS,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: SINCE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT EDUCATING THE PUBLIC AND THE WAY IT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO, IT KIND OF PAINTS A PICTURE THAT SOME RANDOM PERSON FROM THE STREET CAN JUST PUT SOMETHING UP FOR A VOTE AND THE CITY VOTES FOR IT. THERE IS A PROCESS.

THE MATERIAL THAT MR. BAKER SENT US, THAT DOES STRIKE THAT.

DESCRIBE THAT.ONE IS GOVERNING , ANOTHER IS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, OR A COMMISSION CREATED OF SEVEN MEMBERS AND THESE THREE DIFFERENT AVENUES WOULD PRETTY MUCH MAKE THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR. SO, LIKE, US HERE AT CITY COUNCIL, WE WOULD COME UP. SOMEBODY IDENTIFY SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE, COME UP WITH THE ORDINANCE.

CITY COUNCIL VOTES FOR IT AND THEN THAT ORDINANCE NOW GOES TO A VOTE IN WHATEVER NOVEMBER, AUGUST TIME FRAME THAT IT FALLS ON. UNTIL THEN, THAT WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO VOTE ON THAT ISSUE.

BEFORE THEN, IT IS PRETTY MUCH US WHO PUTS THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC ON WHAT'S BEING CHANGED OR WHATNOT. IT IS NOT SOME RANDOM, I GUESS, THING THAT IS JUST GOING TO APPEAR ON THE VOTE FOR THE BALLOT. THAT IS ACTUALLY HOW THE OTHER 14 MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE DO IT, THE GOVERNMENT PUTS THAT QUESTION FORTH TO THE PUBLIC.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY -- WELL, TWO OTHERS, BUT MAINLY THAT'S HOW THAT IS GOING TO GET ON THE ELECTION FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE.

I WANTED TO MENTION THAT FROM RESEARCH STANDPOINT MORE THAN ANYTHING. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THIS IS NO DISRESPECT TO ANYBODY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE REPRESENTATIVES FOR OUR CITIZENS. IT IS OUR JOB AS CITY COUNCIL PERSONS TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE PUTTING BEFORE OUR CITIZENSFUL SOMEBODY SAID JUST PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, THEY WILL VOTE FOR IT, FIGURE IT OUT. NO, THAT'S NOT HOW IT OPERATES.

IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON, THEY COULD BE VOTING WRONG. IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, WHY WOULD WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT? DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

I WAS ELECTED TO DO A JOB FOR MY CONSTITUENTS TO HELP THEM.

NOT TO HURT THEM. I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE HURTING OUR CITY AS WELL AS OUR CITIZENS IF WE PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT UNTIL WE FIGURE IT OUT.

THAT'S NOT WHY I WAS ELECTED. THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE OPERATE.

I FEEL SORRY FOR SOME OF THESE CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SAY, HEY, LET'S JUST PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, THEY WILL FIGURE IT OUT. THAT'S THE NOT WAY I OPERATE.

EVERYBODY DON'T OPERATE LIKE ME. I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR ONE.

BUT WE DON'T NEED TO JUST PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT SO THEY CAN VOTE ON IT. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON, WHAT YOU PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT FOR ANYWAY? I DON'T KNOW. PLUS, WE ARE CALLED TO DO A JOB .WE HAVE A TASK. TO THINK, TO INVESTIGATE, TO

[02:15:05]

IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE DISMISSING IT; WE ARE JUST TRYING TO HELP SOMEONE TO SEE THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR.

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT OURSELVES. TRUST, WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH.

WE HAVE BUDGET COMING UP. WE HAVE TO PUT OUR THOUGHTS AND THINKING INTO THIS BUDGET. WE DON'T WANT TO CUT THE BUDGET SHORT. WE NEED TO TAKE ONE JOB AT A TIME AND DO WELL AT IT. SO I SAY THAT WE POSTPONE THIS.

I CAN'T BRING IT FORTH TO MY CONSTITUENTS LIKE THAT.

I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD WANT ME TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I FEEL SORRY FOR SOME OF THESE CONSTITUENTS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS, IT IS BIT OF A TIMING. I LEARNED THAT WE WANT TO DO IT LAST NIGHT. I READ EVERYTHING I COULD FIND ABOUT IT LAST NIGHT. AND NOW HERE WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

WE ARE UNDER THE GUN. WE THEN WILL PRESENT IT TO THE LOWEST TURNOUT AT THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS, LOWEST TURNOUT.

SO, AGAIN, BY DESIGN, WE HAVE THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE VOTING FOR IT. SO IT IS MORE LIKELY IT WOULD PASS. IT IS JUST TOO MANY BY DESIGNS.

THIS IS NOT -- AND IT IS, AS PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, THIS IS TOO BIG NOT TO GET RIGHT. I DON'T FEEL LIKE -- WE COULD HAVE SIGNALED AND SAID THIS WAS COMING.

WE COULD HAVE DONE A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS.

WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO EDUCATE OUR PUBLIC.

WE SP SPENT MORE TIME WITH FROSY MORN THAN THIS CHARTER.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY FROM ONE OLD NCO TO ANOTHER, THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON ZACHARIAS, FOR YOUR ERA COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE THAT. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

STREETMAN. >> COUNCILPERSON: JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE.

IN REFERENCE TO WHAT I WAS TREREFERRING TO THERE WASN'T BEN ATTORNEY THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, I WASN'T REFERRING TO THE INITIAL DECISION OF HOME RULE OR NOT HOME RULE.

WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WOULD BE THE POTENTIAL OF EVERY OTHER YEAR. THAT'S THE -- HOW OFTEN YOU CAN CHANGE, EVERY TWO YEARS, YOU CAN HAVE AMENDMENTS ON THE BALLOT FOR THE VOTERS TO VOTE ON. YOU COULD HAVE A SLATE OF QUESTIONS ON THERE. SO IT IS NOT JUST THE ONE QUESTION, OF DO YOU WANT HOME RULE OR NOT.

THE SLATE OF POTENTIAL AMENDMEAMENDMENTS THAT CAN BE AY OF DIFFERENT THINGS. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, I HAVE SPENT HOURS OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS SPENDING A LOT OF TIME RESEARCHING, READING EVERYTHING I CAN GET MY HANDS ON.

I HAVE READ ABOUT ALL THE FOURTEEN DIFFERENT CITIES THAT HAVE HOME RULE IN PLACE. I KNOW THAT KNOXVILLE HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE, I BELIEVE, 1950S.

I WAS THINKING MEMPHIS WAS 1970S.

I HAVE NOW READ SO MANY OF THESE, IT IS STARTING TO BLEND.

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

I JUST FEEL THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD MOVE FOR US.

ALSO, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TIMING, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD REALLY AVOID THIS ON THE TIMING, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT IS GOING TO BE VOTED ON IN NOVEMBER.

OKAY, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER? LET'S SAY THE VOTERS DID CHOOSE TO GO THAT DIRECTION? WHAT HAPPENS AFTER? DO WE ADOPT THE CURRENT ONE? WHEN I ASK THAT QUESTION, I POINT OUT THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THIS PARTICULAR BODY THAT DECIDES IT. EVEN IF ALL OF US ARE STILL SITTING IN THE SAME SEATS, 8 OF THE 13 SEATS UP HERE THAT HAVE TO RUN AGAIN THIS COMING YEAR, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS BODY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT BODY IS GOING TO DECIDE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THINGS CAN BE PUT ONTO THE BALLOT TO BE VOTED ON WHICH ALSO INCLUDES, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS CHARTERED.

THIS MAY BE BASED ON OVERALL, BUT I SAW IN SOME INSTANCES

[02:20:04]

IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THAT CAME OUT OF THE BODY.

IF IT WAS CHOSEN TO CREATE A COMMISSION, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IS THAT? ARE THEY VOTED AT LARGE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW SOME OF THEM ARE DONE, CHARTER COMMISSIONS VOTED AT LARGE? THAT'S WHERE THE AMENDMENTS COME FROM TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT. THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF WAYS THAT DIFFERENT THINGS CAN BE DONE ON THIS.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, JUST LIKE SOME OF US SAID, PLEASE READ ALL YOU CAN. I THINK THAT'S WHY I HAVE A HEADACHE TONIGHT FROM THE AMOUNT OF HOURS I HAVE SPENT LOOKING INTO THIS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> MAYOR: I'M KEEPING TAB WITH HOW MANY TIMES YOU SPEAK.

SO COUNCILPERSON SHAKEENAB, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> ALL I HAVE TO SAY LISTENING TO EVERYONE ELSE, THEN MY OWN THOUGHTS. I WAS AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING WHEN THIS CAME UP. SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS ON THAT COMMITTEE HAD QUESTIONS. THE ATTORNEY SAID HE HAD TO RESEARCH SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

HE DIDN'T HAVE THE ANSWERS. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WE AS A BODY SHOULD HAVE SOME TIME WITH THE ATTORNEY TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS, TO EXPLAIN THESE DIFFERENT THINGS TO US BEFORE WE START TRYING TO EDUCATE OUR CONSTITUENTS ON WHAT IS GOING TO BE BEFORE US. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DELAYED.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT, I TRIED TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER EVERYONE SAID STUFF.

THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG, I APOLOGIZE, AND IT IS KIND OF ALL OVER THE PLACE BECAUSE IT IS GOING THROUGH EVERYBODY.

SO SOMEONE REMARKED ABOUT -- I PROBABLY DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHO SAID WHAT NOW. SO DON'T TAKE IT PERSONAL.

SOMEONE REMARKED ABOUT THE SIMPLICITY OF THE STATEMENT THAT IS IN THE -- THAT IS ON THE ORDINANCE.

THAT IS REQUIRED OF THE CONSTITUTION.

SO THAT SIMPLICITY OF THAT IS EXACTLY -- I MEAN, THAT IS THE PRESCRIPTION FOR IT. IN TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION SECTION 11, THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN ORIGINALLY TO GIVE US THE ABILITY TO DO THIS.

WE CAN TRIGGER THIS THIS SIMPLY. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

THE BACKGROUND AND NUANCE BEHIND IT IS NOT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. I AGREE.

BUT, THERE IS A REASON THAT THIS PROVISION IS IN THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION FOR US. AN ISSUE I HAVE WITH A LOT OF THESE SPEAKERS. I'M REALLY LET DOWN BY THE AMOUNT OF DISTRUST I HEAR FOR THE VOTER.

FOR THE CITIZEN. POLITICAL -- THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE JUMPY. POLITICAL ISSUES, AND THE FACT THAT THINGS GET POLITICIZED SHOULD NOT SQUASH THE VOICE OF PEOPLE. AND THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY, WHILE I DPREA WITH THE SENTIMENT, THE ERA WILL NEVER GIVE ME MY GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS. WHILE THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN FOR WHITE LANDOWNERS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ME ALREADY AND THAT IT IS NOT ALREADY MINE. I DON'T NEED THE CONSTITUTION OR THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE ME RIGHTS THAT I INHERENTLY ALREADY HAVE.

BUT, THE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT ALL OF THESE FEDERAL ISSUES WERE VOTED ON BY THE STATE. LIKE THE STATE CURRENTLY VOTES ON EVERYTHING THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE IN OUR CHARTER.

SO I ACTUALLY FEEL THAT THAT POINT KIND OF PROVED MY POINT.

WHICH IS THAT I DON'T WANT THE STATE MAKING THOSE DECISIONS FOR OUR CITY. I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER TO DO THAT AND THE PEOPLE ARE BETTER TO DO THAT.

SO IN REGARD TO THE TIMING, PEOPLE HAVE THREE MONTHS TO DECIDE WHO TO VOTE ON. IF THEY CAN VOTE ON WHO REPRESENTS YOU IN THREE MONTHS, THEN THREE MONTHS IS ALSO PROBABLY ENOUGH TIME TO DO RESEARCH INTO A BALLOT INITIATIVE. PEOPLE FEELING THAT THEIR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER, MAYBE IF THERE IS A BALLOT INITIATIVE ON THERE OR SOMETHING THAT ENCOURAGED THEM, MAYBE THEY WOULD BE

[02:25:01]

I DON'T REMEMBER THAT EVER HAPPENING.

I CANNOT, MYSELF, ONE REPRESENTATIVE, ONE COUNCIL WARD REPRESENTATIVE CALL A SPECIAL SESSION.

IT HAS TO BE SEVEN OF US OR THE MAYOR.

SO THAT STATE OF EMERGENCY WAS NOT TRUE.

VOTER TURNOUT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE VOTERS CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

SORRY, GUYS. I THINK THAT I DO KIND OF DPREA AGREEWITH THE IDEA THAT WE SHOUD WAIT UNTIL THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ON THE FLIP SIDE, I'M LIKE, THE PEOPLE COMING OUT TO VOTE FOR THE MAYOR, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FOCUSED LOCALLY, MUNICIPALLY, MAYBE THEY ARE ARE MORE INFORMED ON CITY STUFF.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE SO DISTRUSTING OF VOTERS.

ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS SAID OUR GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE WORKS WELL AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT, I, AND OTHERS LIKE ME, DISAGREE AND ACTUALLY I THINK ONE OF THE REALLY GOOD REASONS TO ENACT HOME RULE IS SO THAT WE CAN TAILOR OR CHARTER, OUR GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY A POWERED MAYOR STRUCTURE TO SOMETHING, FOR INSTANCE, THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, LIKE A CITY MANAGER, THIS IS SOMETHING IN A WE WOULD THAT WE WOULDBE ALLOWED TO DO A.

IT IS ONE OF MY PERSONAL REASONINGS FOR THINKING IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THIS STRUCTURE SINCE THE ONSET OF THE CHARTER AND WITH HOW MUCH CLARKSVILLE HAS CHANGED, I THINK THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO RE-EVALUATE THAT AND NOT HAVE TO ASK THE STATE FOR PERMISSION TO DO THAT.

TO ANSWER ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED ABOUT -- ACTUALLY, IT WAS LIKE A GROUPING OF QUESTIONS ABOUT ISSUES, I HAVE CONSIDERED THIS, ISSUES WITH HOW OFTEN AND WHO CAN PUT IT ON THERE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IF THE CITY, IF THE REFERENDUM AGREES TO ADOPT HOME RULE CHARTER AT THAT POINT, WE CAN UPDATE THE CHARTER. LIKE WHEN THAT HAPPENS.

WRARDWARD 6 IS NOT HERE. A LOT OF THINGS COME UP HERE THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, I FIGURE OUT IN A WORK.

I'M A CITIZEN HERE. I'M NOT A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT.

AND MR. BAKER, I APPROACHED MR. BAKER ABOUT THIS BEFORE I EVEN GOT INTO OFFICE, THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT I HAD AN INTEREST IN. IT HAS ONLY BEEN BOLSTERED THROUGH THE LAST TWO YEARS. HE SENT A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION. I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY, IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, TO READ IT. I APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE THAT DID DO A LARGE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ALL RIGHT.

MTAS DOES TEACH ABOUT THIS, SOME OF US THAT HAVEN'T GONE TO, MTAS CAN GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION. THEY CAN ANSWER ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS. THIS IS A TWO-WAY THING, WE SHOULD BE ABSORBING AS MUCH AS WE ARE PUTTING OUT.

THERE ARE TIMES WE HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION OR JUST THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE TO GET IT FROM EXPERIENCE THAT WE CAN SHARE WITH OUR CONSTITUENTS. I DO THINK AS EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE THEMSELVES EDUCATED, ET CETERA, WHEN THEY GO TO VOTE. THIS -- YOU GUYS LEARNED ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW SUNSHINE LAW WORKS.

I COULDN'T GIVE EVERYONE A PHONE CALL AND LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS WAS COMING UP. THAT'S JUST AN UNFORTUNATE CASE OF THE SUNSHINE LAW. SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT -- OR STATED ABOUT US HAVING TO WAIT TO PUT THINGS ON REFERENDUM THAT MIGHT BE PRESSING. WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE TO HAVE SESSIONS, TOO.

AND THEN I ACTUALLY LIKE GIVING THE VOTERS THE ABILITY TO TRIGGER GOVERNMENT ACTION THROUGH REFERENDUM WHEN THEY

[02:30:01]

MANY, BUT NOT ALL OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE TONIGHT, ARE REALLY GOOD. BUT A LOT OF IT IS CATASTROPHEIZING. LIKE WE SAID, THREE OF THE FIVE BIG CITIES HAVE THIS. AND THEY HAVEN'T EXPLODED YET.

THE CITIES DO PRETTY GOOD AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND.

SO I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO TRY TO LEARN WHAT YOU NEED TO LEARN ABOUT IT, LIKE WE DO WITH MANY OTHER ISSUES THAT HAPPEN UP HERE. AND AS FAR AS POSTPONING GOES, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH POSTPONING FOR A MONTH OR WHATNOT.

AS LONG AS I NEED TO TALK TO MISS BLACK MR. BAKER AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THAT IS STILL WITHIN THE TIMELINE.

I, TOO, WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE NEEDING TO DO MORE RESEARCH. I HONESTLY GET IT.

I THINK THAT'S IT. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE CONVERSATION, GUYS, AND THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS ANSWERED IN PART ABOUT IF WE WERE TO POSTPONE FOR ONE MONTH, I WOULD ALSO JUST -- I WOULD JUST ANXIOUS TO HEAR NEXT THURSDAY, IF WE CAN GO FORWARD IF MISS BLACK, IF IT IS NOT TOO LATE AT THE ELECTION COMMISSION. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, WE ALSO HAVE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT A TIF.

IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE TIF RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE, IT IS VERY COMPLICATED AS WELL. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVERY LITTLE NUANCE OF AN ISSUE, THEN PROBABLY YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THE TIF THAT WE HAVE COMING UP AS WELL.

IT IS -- JUST LOOKING AT IT HERE IN YOUR IPAD, IT IS -- I WONDER HOW MANY OF US COULD PASS THE TEST ON THAT.

THERE ARE MANY BENEFITS THAT THE PREVIOUS SPOKE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH HOME RULE. I'M NOT SAYING BETWEEN NEXT THURSDAY ILLNESSL I WILL NECESSE FOR IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO STUDY THIS MORE. OTHER STATES HAVE HOME RULES AND MANY OTHER CITIES WITHIN OUR STATE HAS HOME RULE.

THANK, MR. MAYOR. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND

FOR THE SECOND TIME. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK, MAYOR.

I APPRECIATE THE SPONSOR'S REMARKS AND I DO -- I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I WILL BE LOOKING INTO SOME OF THESE RESOURCES THE SPONSOR MENTIONED. I WOULD LOVE TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION OR BE POINTING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF WHERE TO SORT OF GET THE WHAT'S SO AROUND THE CITIES HERE THAT HAVE ADOPTED HOME RULE. I DO LIKE, I BELIEVE, FROM WHAT I KNOW PERIPHERALLY FROM KNOXVILLE AND LOUISVILLE AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, I DO LIKE THE INNOVATION AT WHICH THEY MOVE. SO THAT DOES PEAK MY INTEREST AS I BELIEVE WE ARE ON PACE TO BE ONE OF THOSE COMPETITIVE, IF -- WE ARE ALREADY COMPETITIVE CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES.

THAT DOES PEAK MY INTEREST. SO, YEAH, THANK YOU.

I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING INTO THIS EVEN FURTHER.

>> COUNCILPERSON SHAKEENAB FOR THE SECOND TIME.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF SPECIAL SESSION NEXT MONTH, IF WE COULD. I KNOW EVERYONE IS BUSY, IF WE COULD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND BOUNCE QUESTIONS OFF OF HIM AND HE GIVE US HIS UNDERSTANDING OF IT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

BECAUSE I KNOW EVERY DAY I AM NOT IN MY WARD, I'M LISTENING TO PEOPLE IN MY WARD TALKING ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO THEM, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE EGRESS AND INGRESS ROUTES. THAT'S WHAT I AM DOING EVERY DAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS PUT HERE TO

DO, ACCORDING TO THEM. >> MAYOR: CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ORDINANCE 138-2021-22 FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE TO CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS AND TO ENTER AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS AND/OR PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR THE GREENWOOD AVENUE SIDEWALK PROJECT. FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED

APPROVAL. >> MAYOR: ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE?

[02:35:01]

>> COUNCILPERSON: THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR: THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS GAS AND WATER

COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON REDD. >> WE WILL HAVE A COMPLETE

REPORT NEXT THURSDAY, MAYOR. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, NOW WE ARE

[5) NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES]

CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR, RESOLUTION 62-2021-22, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR PITTS TO FILE WITH THE U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND HOME INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDS. NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

>> MAYOR: ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RESOLUTION?

CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN. >> COUNCILPERSON: I WILL HAVE MY

FULL REPORT NEXT WEEK, MAYOR. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON HOLLEMAN YOU ARE

[7) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE]

RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, I

WILL REPORT NEXT WEEK. >> MAYOR: READY FOR PUBLIC

SAFETY COMMITTEE. >> COUNCILPERSON: PUBLIC SAFETY.

ORDINANCE 120-2021-22 FIRS >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU.

MAYOR. ORDINANCE 120-2021-22 FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE OFFICIAL CITY CODE TO DELETE SUB-PARAGRAPH (3) UNDER SECTION 2-108 AND DELETE SUB-PARAGRAPHS (2) AND (3) UNDER SECTION 2-208.

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE VOTED

FOR APPROVAL. >> ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE 120? SEEING NONE, CHAIRPERSON

HOLLEMAN. >> COUNCILPERSON: I WILL HAVE A

FULL REPORT NEXT WEEK. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU, READY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION STREETS GARAGE COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON

[9) NEW BUSINESS]

SMITH. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR, I WILL HAVE A REPORT NEXT THURSDAY.

>> MAYOR: WE ARE NOW READY FOR YOU THIS BUSINESS.

RESOLUTION 63-2021-22 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY THE MANNER IN WHICH TOW-IN LOTS AND WRECKER SERVICES ARE HANDLED IN THE ZONING CODE AND RETURN AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILPERSON ZACHARIAS 63 YOU ARE THE SPONSOR AND YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THIS IS SIMPLY A REQUEST TO THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THE WAY -- THE CONDITION IN WHICH WRECKER SERVICES AND TOW-IN LOTS ARE ALLOWED TO EXIST IN RELATION TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS. I WAS LED TO WORK TOWARD THIS, I WILL SPOKEN TO MR. TYNDALL ABOUT IT EARLIER IN THE YEAR.

THERE IS A SPECIFICALLY A SITUATION IN MY WARD WHERE WE HAVE GOT SOME C5 HIGHWAY ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT DIRECTLY ABUTS SOME R1 ZONING AND SOME RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WOKE UP ONE MORNING TO FIND THE PREVIOUSLY VACANT LOT NEXT TO THEIR HOMES FULL OF JUNKED AND INOPERABLE CARS.

I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO BUILDING AND CODES AND WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THIS.

THIS IS NOT SPECIFICALLY -- THIS IS WHAT KIND OF GAVE ME THE IDEA. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT GUY IS ON THE PATH TO DOING WHATEVER HE IS DOING.

BUT, YEAH, THIS IS A REAL ISSUE, I BELIEVE.

OUR ZONING ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES THE FACT THAT COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES LIKE TOW-IN LOTS AND WRECKER SERVICES TEND TO HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES OF SURROUNDING HOMES. IN THE CASE OF TOW-IN LOTS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 500 -- WRECKER SERVICES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE 500-FOOT STANDOFF. TOW-IN LOTS ARE NOT.

I CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT ONE OF THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS A WRECKER SERVICE OR A TOW-IN LOT. THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAKE THEM NONDESIRABLE OR UNDESIRABLE TO BE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE PRESENT IN BOTH OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS.

I WOULD ASK THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF WE CAN ADJUST THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BETTER PROTECT THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES LIVING NEXT TO A BUSINESSLIKE THIS. THAT'S WHY I ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ZONING CASE EARLIER. IT HAS C5, THE APPLICANT WANTS TO USE IT FOR A BUSINESS THAT COULD BE A TOW-IN.

IT COULD BE A WRECKER SERVICE. IT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEIR PROPERTY VALUES WOULD MOST CERTAINLY BE AFFECTED BY THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS NEXT TO THEM.

THAT'S ALL. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER,

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. TWO QUESTIONS, ONE TO THE SPONSOR AND ONE TO THE SENIORS HERE.

THE SENIOR MEMBERS OF THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY.

[02:40:01]

FENCE AROUND IT BY ANY CHANCE? >> COUNCILPERSON: THERE IS A

FENCE. >> COUNCILPERSON: OKAY, WAS THIS KIND OF THE SAME ISSUE THAT YOU GUYS PASSED, I THINK IT WAS CHANDLER PASSED ABOUT PUTTING UP THE FENCES AROUND BROKE-DOWN CARS. DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER THAT? I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS WAS THE SAME IDEA.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> COUNCILPERSON: I THINK IT WAS

IN PROVIDENCE. >> MAYOR: NEW PROVIDENCE.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THERE ARE ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, IF THEY SIT ON THE PROPERTY, WHO IS MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE NOT DUMPING INTO THE GROUND? INTO THE GROUNDWATER AND INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOTS. SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE MAYBE TO ADD SOMETHING OR JUST MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. I WAS SURPRISED IT WASN'T

MENTIONED. >> MAYOR: OKAY.

SPONSOR, ANY LAST WORDS FOR THIS RESOLUTION THAT IS?

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: I WILL SAY THAT THE REASON I DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IS BECAUSE THAT PORTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS SUBSEQUENT CONSISTENTBETWEEN THE TWO.

WRECKER SERVICES AND TOW-IN LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THEIR VEHICLES PARKED ON IMPROVED SURFACE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

>> MAYOR: OKAY, NOW READY FOR ITEM 2, 119-2021-22.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE RELATIVE TO SHORT TERM RENTALS.

COUNCILPERSON BUTLER YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

HOME RULE WASN'T AS BAD AS THIS. THE REPEAL OF THE ENTIRE LAW RELATING TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. IT HAS BEEN A YEAR NOW.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO SAY THAT MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HAVE NOT ALREADY HEARD.

JUST THAT I THINK THAT THE LAW ITSELF, WHILE WELL-INTENTIONED, IS REDUNDANT AND I PROMISED WHEN I WAS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL TO WORK TO GET IT REPEALED AND THIS IS JUST ME MAKING GOOD ON THAT PROMISE TO THE PUBLIC WHO FOUND IT INCREDIBLY UNPOPULAR.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE GOT, THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS WE INFILL OUR COMMUNITY, AS WE BUILD OUR HOMES CLOSER AND CLOSER TOGETHER, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDER THANS BECOMES MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT.

I USE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. I TRAVEL.

I APPRECIATE THEM. BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT I'M LIVING NEXT DOOR TO SOMEBODY WHO LIVES THERE.

AS I SAID BEFORE, I WAS A SINGLE SOLDIER WITH TWO KIDS AND A MOTHER AND MOVED ALL MY LIFE, EVERY THREE YEARS.

I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT WAS NEXT DOOR TO ME AND IF IT WAS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL FOR THE SAFETY OF MYSELF AND MY CHILD.

AND IF WE DO NOT HAVE THIS, THEN IT IS A BUYER BEWARE IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND THIS LAW SOURCED THROUGH OUR FIRE AND SAFETY AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND IT IS PROTECTING THE PEOPLE WHO USE SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN AN UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT AUTOMOBILE Y DWELLING UNITS COMING FORWARD WHERE WE WANT TO BUILD SMALLER UNITS ON TO OUR HOMES OR SMALLER DWELLINGS. AND IF WE DO NOT HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE, I WILL BE VERY VOCAL TO OPPOSE ANY ADU. I'M JUST SETTING THAT OUT FOR TRANSPARENCY. WE CANNOT HAVE ADUS AND NOT HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. IT IS UNSAFE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND UNFAIR TO OUR RESIDENTS. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'M GOING TO SAY SOME THINGS, SAME THING, THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD. BUT AS THE SPONSOR THAT ORIGINALLY WORKED ON THIS, A YEAR WAS SPENT WORKING ON THIS AND CREATING THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS LONG BECAUSE OF THE FACT IT IS VERY DETAILED. SO THAT THE OWNERS OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES, THEY KNOW WHAT CAN -- WHAT IS AND IS NOT PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT THEY CAN IN TURN LET ANYONE KNOW WHO IS ON THEIR

[02:45:04]

BUT IT IS ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE STAYING THERE TO KNOW THEY ARE STAYING IN A SAFE PLACE.

THISLE KNOW THAT BUILDING AND CODES HAS CHECKED THE HOME AND VERIFIED THAT IT IS SAFE TO BE IN THERE.

THE DECK IS UP TO PAR. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING TOGETHER FOR A FAMILY AFFAIR AND THE DECK FALLING IN. IT IS SO THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN GO IN THERE AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS TAKEN CARE OF FOR THOSE PEOPLE STAYING THERE, THAT THE FIRE ALARMS, SMOKE ALARMS ARE WORKING.

THAT THERE'S FIRE EXTINGUISHERS THERE, NO DOORS THAT ARE LOCKED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY CERTAIN WAYS TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE HOUSE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ENSURING THAT PEOPLE CAN GET IN AND OUT OF THERE SAFELY.

THEY ARE REGULATING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE STAYING THERE. YOU CAN LOOK ON ONE OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMPANIES, LOOK ON THEIR WEBSITE AND WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING HERE, LOOKING OTHER PLACES, YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE WHERE SOMEBODY IS SAYING 20 PEOPLE CAN STAY IN A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE.

THAT IS NOT SAFE FOR THAT MANY OF PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO STAYING OVERNIGHT. THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEM TRYING TO GET OUT OF THERE, THE WEIGHT LOAD ON DIFFERENT THINGS.

SAFETY WAS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THIS AND WHY THERE IS INSPECTIONS THAT TAKE PLACE.

IT IS ALSO FOR THE NEIGHBORS OF THOSE THAT ARE AROUND IT.

IN ORDINANCE DOES NOT STOP ANYBODY FROM BEING ABLE TO OPERATE. IT DOESN'T STOP THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT IS NOT ZONING DEPENDENT. NONE OF THAT.

THIS ALLOWS PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IT BUT DO IT IN A SAFE WAY AND LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT IT IS SAFE BUT ALSO TO NOT BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THOSE AROUND THEM.

THOSE AROUND THEM HAVE AN AVENUE TO BE ABLE TO REGISTER COMPLAINTS AND IF THEY ARE FOUND IN VIOLATING THREE LOCAL LAWS, AT THAT POINT THEN AND AFTER THEIR APPEALS ARE DONE, THEN WOULD THEY LOSE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE AT THAT POINT. IT IS NOT TRYING TO PREVENT ANYBODY FROM BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE THEIR PROPERTY THE WAY THEY WANT TO DO IT. IT IS JUST TRYING TO FIND A MIDDLE GROUND SO THAT, FOR ONE, WHEN YOUR LOVED ONES ARE COMING TO VISIT FOR A FAMILY FUNCTION, PEOPLE COMING INTO TOWN, MAYBE BECAUSE GRANDCHILD IS BEING BORN OR SOMEBODY IS GRADUATING OR THERE'S A WEDDING OCCURRING, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR FAMILY STAYING IN ONE OF THESE THAT HAVE BEEN INSPECTED. JUST LIKE IN A HOTEL WHERE THE ELEVATOR HAS BEEN INSPECTED. ALONG THOSE SAME LINES.

THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL INDUSTRY HAS SKY ROCKETED, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE PANDEMIC SET IN BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WEREN'T WANT TO GO STAY IN HOTELS, THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO STAY THEY COULD STAY CONSECLUDED.

I LIKE TO STAY IN THEM AS WELL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE ARE STAYING HERE ARE PROTECTED AND OUR CITIZENS HAVE AN AVENUE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES PUT ON THEM. THAT'S ALL I WILL SAY TONIGHT.

AND I WILL SAY, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE THIS IS OUR THIRD OR FOURTH TIME DEALING WITH CHANGES OR DOING AWAY WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE

SINCE FIRST ENACTED IN 2019. >> MAYOR: ITEM 3, RESULOTION 68-2021-22 A RESOLUTION TO REPEAL RESOLUTION 51-2020-21 EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE COUNCIL IN REGARD TO LANCE BAKER IN HIS POSITION OF CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE. COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS MY FEEL-GOOD LEGISLATION FOR THE NIGHT. WHEW? I WANTED TO PUT THIS UP, I DON'T KNOW IT HAS BEEN NOW, BEEN LIKE A YEAR AND A HALF, I REALLY APPRECIATE MR. BAKER AND EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE WITH ME DURING MY TENURE ON THE COUNCIL.

AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS -- THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION DIDN'T DO WHAT WE REALLY SET OUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO, WHICH WAS TO FORCE ACTION IN AREAS WHERE WE DIDN'T FEEL WE HAD THE POWER TO DO SO.

UNFORTUNATELY, MR. BAKER IS THE ONE THAT SUFFERED FOR THAT.

I LOOKED BACK AT THIS RESOLUTION AND I READ OVER THE RESOLUTION AND I NOW AT THIS TIME FEEL WE WERE PREEMPTIVE AND I DON'T AGREE ANY LONGER WITH WHAT IT SAYS AND IF WE CAN'T REPEAL IT, WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON THE RECORD SAYING THAT THESE ARE NO LONGER MY FEELINGS.

[02:50:03]

SOME OF YOU ARE SITTING THERE, TOLD YOU SO, YOU ARE RIGHT.

I WOULD ASK THAT WE PASS THIS REPEAL.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON

REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCILPERSON: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I VOTED AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT WE REPEAL IT. WE PASS ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT PEOPLE AND RESIDENTS DO NOT APPRECIATE AND THEY ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDINANCES THAT WE PASS IN OUR COMMUNITY. I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR AND LOYALTIES, BUT ALL THAT THE MAYOR HAD TO DO TO CLEAR THIS WAS TO INVESTIGATE IT AND COME BACK AND SAY, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, AND WE ARE ALL DONE. HE HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY AND HE DID NOT. HE JUST CHOSE TO IGNORE IT.

IF WE WANT TO CLEAR THIS, THEN THE MAYOR SHOULD COMPLY.

I DON'T THINK THAT SHE SHOULD JUST SAY, WE ARE NOT -- I DON'T WANT TO COMPLY. IT HASN'T BEEN COMPLIED WITH, LET'S NOT DO IT. THE OPPORTUNITY IS JUST TO SAY, I APPRECIATE HIM. I HAVE INVESTIGATED HIM.

EVERYTHING IS GOOD. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

WE SHOULD NOT REPEAL IT. IT SHOULD BE -- RESIDENTS, WE DON'T LET THEM COME TO COURT, THAT IS A STUPID RULE, I DON'T WANT TO DO IT. OH, WE WILL REPEAL THAT RULE FOR YOU. WE DON'T THAT.

WE EXPECT THEM TO COMPLY AND THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CLEARED IN 90 DAYS. AND BE DONE WITH AND ACTUALLY GIVEN MR. BAKER A GOLD STAR OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

SO I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE COMPLIED WITH AND I THINK THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CORRECT, AS I SAID, VOTED AGAINST IT THE FIRST TIME, AND SO I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. BUT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW WE SHOULD FUNCTION. WE SHOULD LEAD FROM THE FRONT.

WE ARE LEADERS IN THIS COMMUNITY AND WE LEAD FROM THE FRONT.

WE DON'T SAY DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

WE HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR OWN RULES. WE FAIL TO DO SO IN THIS.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: I AM NOT GOING TO LET THAT STATEMENT GO UNCHALLENGED. I CAN TELL YOU YOUR STATEMENTS ARE FLAWED AND WRONG AND I RESENT THEM.

YOU ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO IT. I DID.

I MAKE IT A POLICY NOT TO PUT ON TRIAL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT ARE SITTING HERE AND SERVE THIS CITY WITH FIDELITY AND DEDICATION. THEY ARE SPENDING THEIR TIME OUT HERE DOING THEIR JOB AND I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOUITELLING MY I DIDN'T DO MY JOB. IT WAS NOT MY JOB TO REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL A PERSONNEL MOVE AND I WILL NOT START DOING THAT. SO I WILL LEAVE IT THERE.

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS.

>> COMMISSIONER: I WANT TO REMIND YOU, MAYOR, THAT I AGREE WITH YOU AND I, AGAIN, VOTED AGAINST THAT FOR THAT VERY REASON AND SAID THOSE THINGS WHEN WE WERE ON THE FLOOR AND HAD THAT CONVERSATION. AND OPPOSED WHEN THEY CAME UP TO SAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO POLITICIZED SOME OF THE OTHER POSITIONS. I DID NOT AGREE WITH THAT.

I'M SORRY THAT YOU FEEL THAT WAY.

I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND I NEVER AGREED WITH THIS BUT IT DID PASS. SO WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IS ADDRESSED IT IN SOME FORM AND PUT IT TO REST INSTEAD OF JUST IGNORING IT. I'M SORRY.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THIS GOES BACK TO MY HOME RULE ARGUMENT THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HOW OUR GOVERNMENT IS STRUCTURED, I AGREE WITH WHAT THE MAYOR SAID, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND TELL US.

I CAN THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT FOR US TO CIRCUMVENT THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE IS SET UP AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT OF STICKING TO YOUR GUNS AND DOING THE RIGHT THING AND LEADING FROM THE FRONT, I ALSO KNOW THAT SOMETIMES WE MAKE MISTAKES AND I THINK THAT SOMETIMES IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND STAND UP AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE MESSED THIS ONE UP. SO I GUESS THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANKS AGAIN.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON HOLLEMAN.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I VOTED AGAINST THIS ONE.

I WAS PRETTY OUT SPOKEN, VERY VERY MUCH AGAINST IT.

[02:55:02]

SO WE MADE A MISTAKE, ESSENTIALLY.

I LIKE THIS RESOLUTION AND I THINK IT IS A GOOD MOVE.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: WE ARE NOW READY FOR

[10) MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS]

COUNCILPERSON ZACHARIAS. >> COUNCILPERSON: YES, MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL CONGRATULATE THE CLARKSVILLE -- THE CMC CLASS OF 2022 OF WHICH MY SON AIAIDEN, I AM INCREDIBLY PROUD. YOUR MOTHER AND I INCREDIBLY PROUD OF YOU. LOOKING FORWARD TO GRADUATION SATURDAY. I WANT TO GIVE KUDOS TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY EMS. I WAS MEETING WITH A CONSTITUENT JUST YESTERDAY, CONSTITUENT CAME TO ANSWER THE DOOR.

GOT A LITTLE BIT DIZZY, PASSED OUT.

LOST CONSCIOUSNESS. THERE WAS A LOCKED DOOR BETWEEN ME AND THIS GENTLEMAN. I CALLED 911, EMS WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY IN UNDER THREE MINUTES. AND THEY HAD CHECKED OUT THE CITIZEN, CLEARED HIM. THE ENTIRE CALL LASTED LESS THAN TEN MINUTES. IT WAS A REALLY IMPRESSIVE DISPLAY OF THE SERVICES THAT THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY EMS PROVIDES TO THE PEOPLE IN CLARKSVILLE. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: LET'S GIVE AIDEN, A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR GRADUATING.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THANK AGAIN, MAYOR.

HAPPY B B BELATED BIRTHDAY TO AR MARQUIS, WARD 5.

>> MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON SMITH. >> KUDOS TO ALL SENIORS GRADUATING, LET'S GIVE THEM A CALL.

>> MAYOR: ANYONE ELSE. WE ARE NOW READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. SEEING NONE, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

SEE YOU

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.