Jul 30, 2020 Executive Meeting

[00:00:03]

>> JUNE 30 -- JULY 30, 2020. WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE PLANNING

[1) PLANNING COMMISSION RPC]

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE NEWS THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I AM SURE THAT I AM LATE UNTIL WE BROADCAST. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE THRIVE GROUP TO REBRAND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND WHEN I ARRIVED WE HAD STANDARD FORMS AND NO LETTERHEAD AND WENT THROUGH AN EXERCISE TO CREATE A NEW LOGO AND CAME UP WITH A STANDARD GUIDE ON WHAT FONTS TO USE AND WHEN TO USE THE LOGOS.

WE HAVE SHORT-FORM LOGOS AND LONG-FORM LOGOS AND A WEBSITE THAT WILL BE INTERACTIVE AND WE WILL HAVE NUMBERS ON CASES AND PEOPLE WILL SEE MAPS AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT ON THE WEBSITE.

AND A LOT OF CONTACT INFORMATION AND USEFUL LINKS TO CITY AND COUNTY DEPARTMENTS. AND HOPEFULLY ROLL THAT OUT IN TWO WEEKS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THAT TAKE USE OF THOSE RESOURCES WHEN THAT ROLLS OUT.

>> WILL YOU SEND E-MAIL TO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHEN YOU ROLL IT

OUT? >> YEAH, OUR WEBSITE NOT GOING TO CHANGE BUT HIT THAT SWITCH AND FLIP OVER AND LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE ARE LIVE. REAL CLOSE.

PUTTING THE POLISH ON IT. >> I UNDERSTAND, READY FOR THE FIRST ITEM ORDINANCE 5-2020-21. MR. TYNDALL.

>> THIS IS OUR CASE Z-2020-APPLICATION OF DERRICK

STEVENS -- >> JUST UNDER ONE ACRE.

>> LET ME STOP YOU THERE, ORDINANCE THAT WAS POSTPONED.

THE PREWITT LANE. FOR THE COUNCIL'S PURPOSE WE ARE -- ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ON ORDINANCE 5 THAT WAS POSTPONED FROM LAST MONTH? COUNCILMEMBER HENLEY YOU ARE RECO RECOGNIZED.

>> YES IF I RECALL, COUNCILMEMBER BURKHART OR SOMEONE WAS GOING TO TALK TO THE AGENT ON THIS ONE, THERE WAS A BUNCH OF CONCERNS, 105 HOUSES IN HERE AND PROBLEM AREA AND GOING

TO TALK THE AGENTS. >> I THINK WE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT ON THE

BOARD FIRST. >> THANK YOU MAYOR, READY TO PASS OUT THE RENDERINGS THAT WE DEVELOPED ABOUT THE PROJECT.

PASS THEM OUT NOW. >> ALL RIGHT IF YOU DISTRIBUTE THOSE AND WE WILL MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE VIRTUAL BEFORE NEXT MEETING.

>> SO WHAT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED IS KIND OF A RENDERING OF THE AREA. YOU KNOW YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION SOME CONCERNS AS IT RELATES TO WHITFIELD ROAD AND ACCESS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR POTENTIAL RESIDENTS ACCESS IN THAT AREA. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE SHARED WAS IN ADDITION TO MAKING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO PREWITT ROAD IN AND OF ITSELF, AS IT STANDS NOW IT'S NOT ALL OF THAT WIDE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS AND HAD GRAVEL AND ROCKS ON THE SIDE. AND COMPLETELY FINISHING THAT ROAD OUT AND ADDING A TURNING LANE ON TO WHITFIELD ROAD TO MAKE ACCESS IN AND OUT A LOT EASIER AND LESS OF A BURDEN OF TRAFFIC ON THE RESIDENTS. YOU SEE ONE RENDERING THAT HAS JUST -- JUST A STRAIGHTWAY DOWN WHITFIELD ROAD FROM THE POTENTIAL SITE. AND OTHER ONE SHOWS HOW THE TURN LANE IS CONFIGURED SO THAT PEOPLE CAN TURN LEFT ON TO PREWITT AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTINUES STRAIGHT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT, ONE PAGE?

>> TWO PAGE. >> OKAY, WE ONLY GOT ONE PAGE.

>> YEAH, ONE OF THEM LIKE I SAID, WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHERE IT SAYS WHITFIELD ROAD, YOU SHOULD HAVE ONE PAGE THAT THE LEFT-HAND TURN ON TO PREWITT WITH ARROWS GOING STRAIGHT.

THAT'S THE PROPOSED REVISION TO HIS ORIGINAL DRAFT.

>> CAN YOU HOLD IT UP SO WE CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT YOU

ARE TALKING ABOUT? >> THIS ONE HERE -- THE ONE WITH THE EXTRA WHITE TURN-IN LANE HERE IS THE NEWER RENDERING.

[00:05:04]

>> COUNCILLADY SMITH I HEARD YOUR VOICE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> YES, MAYOR, WILL YOU SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN SO WE CAN SEE IT?

>> WE CANNOT SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN, JUST RECEIVED IT AND BE

SURE YOU HAVE A COPY TO YOU. >> IS THAT ORDINANCE 521?

>> YES, MA'AM. THE FIRST ITEM ORDINANCE 5

POSTPONED FROM LAST MONTH. >> TO HELP FIND IT IF YOU TURN YOUR -- TURN IT PORTRAIT WAYS WHERE YOU CAN READ WHERE IT SAYS, PREWITT LANE. IT WILL BE EASIER TO SPOT THEN.

IF YOU ARE HOLDING IT UP LIKE THIS, THEN DOWN JUST ABOVE WHERE IT SAYS PREWITT LANE. YOU SHOULD SEE THE TURN LANE.

>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS ON COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT WHAT HE DISTRIBUTED. ALL I SEE IS EX1 AT THE BOTTOM.

>> EX1 IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN -- WELL, THEY BOTH SAY EX1 ON

IT. >> OH, I ONLY GOT ONE.

>> YEAH, THE BOTTOM PIECE WITH THE TURN LANE.

>> EX1, OKAY. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> CORRECT. YEAH, YOU GOT BOTH OF THEM.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION MAYOR. >> COUNCILLADY SMITH, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> IS THIS THE PROPERTY PERTAINING TO WHITFIELD DRIVE, I SEE PREWITT LANE DOES THAT RUN

NEXT TO WHITFIELD ROAD? >> YES, IT'S THE SAME PROJECT.

>> WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DO DIFFERENT?

>> WHEN YOU SEE THE RENDERINGS IT WILL BE EVIDENT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO AND ASK COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT TO EXPLAIN

ONE MORE TIME. >> I CAN'T HARDLY HEAR HIM.

>> I WILL SPEAK UP. AS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN CALLED FOR JUST COMING DOWN WHITFIELD ROAD, JUST A SINGLE LANE.

SINGLE LANE ROAD EITHER WHICH WAY AND TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR TRAFFIC TO COME OFF OF WHITFIELD ON TO PREWITT ROAD.

WHAT HE'S ADDED IS A ROAD IMPROVEMENT TO WHITFIELD TO ADD A TURN LANE IN ADDITION TO WIDENING OF PREWITT LANE IN AND OF ITSELF, TO MAKE IT EASIER TO HANDLE TRAFFIC.

MAKE IT A LOT MORE SAFER AND ACCESSIBLE FOR RESIDENTS TO GET IN AND OUT AND MINIMIZE THE RISK OF ANY ACCIDENTS.

AND MR. TYNDALL CAN PROBABLY ELABORATE ON WHAT HE'S DOING AS FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT OFF THE ROAD.

>> COUNCILLADY SMITH DID THAT HELP CLARIFY?

>> YES, SIR. MAYOR, I WAS WONDERING IS THAT GOING TO BE TWO TURN-IN LANES, INGRESS AND EGRESS ON IN AND OUT TO WHITFIELD, COMING IN TO PREWITT LANE?

>> ON WHITFIELD ROAD IF YOU TURN LEFT IN PREWITT LANE, THERE IS ONE LEFT-PROPOSED TURN LANE PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER TO BE ADDED AT THEIR EXPENSE AND ONE LANE WHERE YOU CONTINUE STRAIGHT ON WHITFIELD. AND THEY PROPOSE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO PREWITT LANE UP TO AND BEYOND THEIR PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT. >> WILL THERE BE SIDEWALKS ADDED

AS WELL? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, WE WILL GET THAT ANSWER BEFORE NEXT WEEK.

>> OKAY. >> MR. TEYNDALL.

>> FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE THIS IS A NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED.

THEY HAVE A GOOD REASON TO SAY WE DON'T BUT THIS RENDERING IS SHOWING THAT. THIS IS A RENDERING AND THE ENGINEER HAS NOT GONE IN WITH THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND THAT TURNING LANE COULD VARY, AND WE DON'T SEE A LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING A LEFT DON'T STOP THE PEOPLE TURNING RIGHT ON THAT SIDE STREET.

WHAT WOULD ORIGINALLY HAPPEN THE ROAD CONTINUE STRAIGHT INTO WHAT IS THE MOBILE HOME PARK. NOW THE DEVELOPER WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THIS ACRE OF LAND OVER HERE IN ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY IN THE REAR, WHICH IS WHAT IS REZONED, THE REQUEST IS FOR. IT WILL JOG OVER AND CONTINUE LIKELY AS PREWITT LANE AND PROVIDE AN ENTRANCE DRIVE INTO THE MOBILE HOME PARK. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT VERBALLY TO US LAST MONTH BUT GOOD TO SEE IT NOW IN A PICTURE.

[00:10:03]

>> OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> I SENT IT TO HER, COUNCILMEMBER RICHMOND.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> THE AGENT ON IT AND SHARE WITH HIM OUR CONCERNS. BASICALLY WHAT WE SAID LAST MONTH. AND HE UNDERSTOOD THE CONCERN AND THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE FEWER TIMES I SEEN A DEVELOPER SAY WHATEVER I NEED TO DO. I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE SO I CAN WIDEN THE LANE OR TURN LANE, IF THE STREET DEPARTMENT WANTS ME TO PUT ONE IN.

THEY MAY NOT LET ME BUT I AM WILLING TO DO WHAT I NEED TO DO.

AND PAY FOR IT. I HAVE DONE IT ON TRENTON ROAD BEFORE AND USED TO PUTTING IN TURN LANES AND MAKING IT ACCESSIBLE. THAT WAS GOOD FOR ME.

IT WAS GOOD FOR ME TO SEE THAT AND HEAR THAT.

AND I THINK WHAT SHE'S ASKING ABOUT IS MAKING IT COME OUT OF PREWITT LANE AND WITH A RIGHT TURN LANE WHEREAS THE CAR IS NOT BACKED UP. IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TURN LEFT IT DOESN'T BACK UP AND STILL GO AROUND.

AND IN TALKING TO HIM ABOUT THAT.

HE SAID IF THAT'S NEEDED HE WILL DO THAT.

HE WILL ADJUST THAT INTERSECTION TO HOW WE NEED IT TO ACCOMMODATE

IT. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN REGARDING THOSE REMARKS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU MAYOR, DO WE HAVE A DISTANCE FROM PREWITT LANE UP TO WHITFIELD ROAD AND 101ST?

>> DO WE HAVE A DISTANCE, HOW FAR IT IS?

>> HOW FAR IT IS FROM PREWITT LANE UP TO 101ST WHITFIELD LANE?

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> YEAH, I WONDER WHAT IT IS FROM 101ST BACK TO WHITFIELD ROAD UNTIL WE GET TO PREWITT

LANE. >> ONE-QUARTER AND ONE-EIGHTH OR

HALF MILE. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER.

HENLEY. >> YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS. IF YOU HAVE 105 HOUSES A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE WOULD BE HANDY COMING OUT OF PREWITT.

>> I THINK MR. TYNDALL SAID THAT THEY WOULD LIKE FOR THAT ON THE

SITE PLAN, I THINK WHAT HE SAID. >> MR. TYNDALL.

>> WHEN THIS COMES IN FOR SUBDIVISION PART OF IT WOULD BE THE NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THAT TIME WE GET THE CITY STREET DEPARTMENTS AND ENGINEERS INVOLVED AND CRUNCH THE NUMBERS.

THIS WOULD REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE LENGTH OF THOSE TURNING LANES NEED TO BE.

HOW MANY CARS MAY STACK AT A PARTICULAR TIME.

IT GOES INTO THAT AND FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. I WILL SAY AND TRYING TO GET YOU THAT MEASUREMENT RIGHT NOW FROM HERE TO 101ST.

THIS WILL HAVE TO MATCH-UP AND IMPROVEMENTS ON WHITFIELD AND 101ST. IF WE GO PAST TRACY LANE.

DON'T FORGET THIS IS REZONING AND FIRST HEARING AND SECOND HEARING, THEY WON'T APPLY TO OUR OFFICE UNTIL SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER TIME FRAME AND WORKA THAT SUBDIVISION AT THAT TIME.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I KNOW THIS WAS TOUCHED ON LAST MONTH DISCUSSING THIS. TRAFFIC STUDY WILL BE DONE AT PEAK HOURS OF THAT AREA WHEN YOUR DEPARTMENT IS GOING THROUGH

THIS PROCESS? >> I CAN ASSURE YOU YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> IT WON'T BE DONE AT 1 A.M..

>> AND BY THE WAY LOOKS JUST OVER 1200 FEET FROM 101ST INTERSECTION TO PREWITT LANE INTERSECTION.

QUARTER OF A MILE. >> OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CASE POSTPONED FROM LAST MEETING? COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN ONE MORE

TIME. >> THE PROJECT AT THE -- I ASKED MR. [INAUDIBLE] AND I GUESS THEY FORGOT TO SEND IT TO ME AND LOOK AT THE PROJECT AND WHERE IT STOPS AND STARTS.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN AN AREA OF CONCERN FOR ME BECAUSE OF THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX. AND I SEE PEOPLE PUSHING BABIES AND THERE IS NO -- NOT EVEN A SHOULDER.

[00:15:02]

AND BY HAVING THE SIDEWALKS OUT OF PREWITT LANE.

I DON'T KNOW IF -- JUST AN ESTIMATE I SUPPOSE.

BUT IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THOSE SIDEWALKS TO CONNECT.

YOU KNOW. WHEN THE CITY DOES THEIRS AND THAT WAY WE SOLVE IT ALL, IF THEY CAN KIND OF WORK TOGETHER

AND SAVE THEM MONEY AND US. >> I KNOW THAT THE STREET DEPARTMENT IS ON THE MEETING WITH US AND NOT ASK THEM TO WEIGH IN AT THIS POINT UNLESS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS.

I WILL ASK THEM TO PROVIDE AERIALS AND DRAWINGS, THIS PROJECT AT WHITFIELD AND THIS PROJECT SO YOU CAN SEE IT ALL IN ONE DRAWING. WE WILL HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, HOW IS THAT? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ZONING CASE ORDINANCE 5. HEARING NONE.

OKAY. MR. TYNDALL GO TO ORDINANCE 9.

2020-21. >> THANK YOU THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF CARROLL STEVENS AND DERRICK STEVENS, AT TERMINUS OF WEST THOMPKINS LANE AND THAT COMES OFF OF PARADISE HILL ROAD

IF YOU HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE. >> EXCUSE ME --

>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER RICHMOND. >> YES, HOW ARE YOU.

IF MR. TYNDALL IS SHARING SOMETHING ON THE SCREEN, WHOEVER THE ADMIN IS, WE CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE PRESENTATION, THE WAY IT'S SET UP, JUST SHOWING OUR FACES, IF THEY CAN CHANGE OUR

VIEW AND SEE THE SCREEN. >> THANK YOU, WE HAVE OUR CRACKER JACK I.T. STAFF WORKING ON IT NOW.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> CAN YOU SEE IT NOW

COUNCILMEMBER RICHMOND OR SMITH? >> NO, SIR, NOT YET.

>> OKAY, HOLD ON, STAND BY. THAT'S PRETTY --

>> WE CAN SEE YOU NOW MAYOR. >> OH, I'M SORRY.

>> NICE TIE. WHAT ABOUT NOW?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR THAT'S IT. >> ALL RIGHT, SCORE.

>> NO, I CAN'T SEE YOU MAYOR. >> OKAY, COUNCILLADY SMITH CAN'T

SEE IT. >> I SEE YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER RICHMOND? >> YES I CAN SEE IT.

>> I JUST SEE YOU MAYOR. >> I'M SORRY --

[LAUGHTER] >> IS THERE SOMETHING THAT NEED

NEEDS TO DO? >> I SEE IT NOW.

>> ALL RIGHT, THERE WE GO. WE'RE GOLD NOW MR. TYNDALL

PLEASE PROCEED. >> I LOVE IT WHEN TECHNOLOGY

WORKS. >> CAN'T WAIT TO GET BACK TO

NORMAL. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> NOW WE'RE BACK. THIS PROPERTY IS AT SOUTH TERMINUS OF WEST THOMPKINS LANE. FOR THE HISTORIANS IN THE BUNCH IT WAS AN ENTRANCE TO DUMP BACK IN THE DAY AND CLOSED IN THE 60S. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS PART OF THE DUMP PROPERTY BUT THE ROAD WAS THE OLD DRIVEWAY. WHEN I SHOW YOU THE PICTURES YOU SEE THE SUBSTANDARD OF ROAD THAT IS OUT THERE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE TO R3 FOR A THREE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THERE IS ENOUGH PROPERTY TO SUBDIVIDE AND BUILD TWO OR THREE TRIPLEXES IF THEIR REZONING IS SUCCESSFUL.

THERE IS R3 TO THE WEST AROUND HAPPY HOLLOW LANE OVER THERE.

HOWEVER THAT PART OF TOWN DOES NOT CONNECT TO WEST THOMPKINS LANE, YOU HAVE TO GO OUT AND AROUND THE BLOCK TO GET THIS THAT AREA, DOMINATED BY R1 AND R2 DISTRICTS.

I WILL SAY IF YOU GO DOWN THERE SOME HOUSES MAY HAVE MORE THAN

[00:20:01]

BY RIGHT THE OWNER CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND COULD SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS AND TWO SINGLE FAMILY WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS. ONCE YOU TRIGGER MULTIFAMILY UNITS, TWO TRIPLEXES OR THREE, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROAD MAY BE NECESSITATED AT THAT POINT. THERE IS AN EMPTY LOT WHERE THE PAVEMENT ENDS ON THE LEFT IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

AND TAILS OFF STRAIGHT AHEAD TO A DIRT ROAD WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OLD LANDFILL. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION YESTERDAY A RENDERING OF WHAT A TURN-AROUND WOULD BE ON THE SITE BUT PROVIDED NO MORE DETAILS IF PUBLICLY DEDICATED OR PRIVATE OR HOW MUCH PAVEMENT ON THE STREET.

THE STREET DEPARTMENT INDICATES THAT THEY WOULD WORK IT OUT WITH THE APPLICANT. THERE MAY BE SOME EXTRA COUPLE FEET OF PAVEMENT PUT ON THIS ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE.

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS OKAY WITH THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD SO LONG AS THEY HAD A TURN AROUND AT THE END.

OTHER COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENTS. GAS AND WATER WAS OKAY.

AGAIN THE NEED FOR TURN-AROUND TO BE DETERMINED BY RPC AND FIRE AND RESCUE. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM PROVIDED COMMENTS ABOUT CAPACITY AT CLARKSVILLE HIGH.

IF I DIDN'T MENTION IT IT'S IN COUNCIL WARD 7.

OUR HISTORICAL ESTIMATES FOR THIS WILL BE SIX UNITS.

TWO TRIPLEXES. IN THE SOUTH CLARKSVILLE PLANNING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

WITH A CLAUSE THAT R1 IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT UNLESS INCORRECTLY ZONED IN THE FIRST PLACE OR ECONOMIC CHANGE OF SOCIAL NOT CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST PLACE OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. AND LIMITING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY MAY REQUIRE INFRASTRUCTURE OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT LIKELY EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO

RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

IS THIS A CITY STREET? >> IT IS.

IT'S A CITY STREET. >> ALL THE WAY WHERE IT GOES INTO DIRT, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY ABOUT DIRT.

>> IT'S HARD TO MAKE OUT ON THIS MAP.

YOU SEE THAT THIN SLIVER BELOW, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DOES CONTINUE

BUT THE PAVEMENT DOES NOT. >> BUT THE DIRT IS A CITY

RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THERE IS RIGHT-OF-WAY OUT THERE, IT'S A NARROW RIGHT-OF-WAY, PROBABLY ONLY 30 FEET OPPOSED TO 40 FEET WHICH ARE TYPICAL.

>> AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION -- WELL, I GUESS MY LAST THING IS A STATEMENT. I AM LOOKING AT THE RECTANGLE WHERE THIS IS PROPOSED, RIGHT BEHIND IT IS R3.

AND ACROSS THE FIELD IS R4. AND I JUST DON'T SEE WHAT A DISAPPROVAL, YOU KNOW. OKAY THE ROAD IS BAD.

THAT'S OUR FAULT. THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, THAT'S OUR FAULT THE ROAD IS BAD. WE SHOULD HAVE MAINTAINED IT.

AND THEN TO SAY THAT WELL THERE IS NOT REALLY ANY R3 IN THE AREA. YOU HAVE TO GO AROUND THE CORNER. WELL, YOU GO RIGHT ACROSS THE FIELD BEHIND IT AND YOU HAVE R3. AND GO ACROSS THE FIELD ON THE OTHER SIDE AND YOU HAVE R4. I'M STILL CONFUSED AND I GUESS I HAVE A WEEK TO UNCLEAR MY CONFUSION, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER.

COUNCILLADY SMITH YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. FIRST I WANT TO KNOW IF ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THE AREA?

>> MR. OPPOSITION MR. TYNDALL. >> WE RECEIVED SOME PHONE CALLS BUT NO ONE LEFT A FORMAL STATEMENT.

>> COUNCILLADY SMITH DID YOU HEAR THE ANSWER.

[00:25:01]

>> YEAH, HE SAID THAT SOMEBODY CALLED AND DIDN'T LEAVE

INFORMATION WHAT THEY WANT. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY, THESE ARE GOING TO BE RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT

[INAUDIBLE]. >> DO WE KNOW THE PROPOSED USE

MR. TYNDALL? >> THE PROPOSED USE IS A TRIPLEX IN R3, IT'S OWNER OR RENTAL, WE DON'T REGULATE THAT.

>> OKAY AND IS THAT A DEAD END AREA?

>> IT IS. >> I DON'T SEE WHY IT'S DISAPPROVED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

IT'S A WOODED AREA WITH A LOT OF WOODED TREES AND SHRUBS.

THAT NEEDS TO BE -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CUTTING THAT DOWN PERIODICALLY. LIKE THEY DO ON THE SIDE ROADS.

BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO.

I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. BECAUSE IT DID LOOK LIKE KIND OF NOT TOO, I SAY HEALTHY OVER IN THAT AREA.

AND IT NEEDS TO UPLIFT IT. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS, I DON'T SEE REASON FOR DISAPPROVAL.

I SEE R3 ACROSS THE STREET AND ON THE CORNER, I DON'T SEE WHERE IT'S A PROBLEM. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HELP MAKE THE LAND LOOK BETTER ANYWAY.

YOU KNOW. BRING SOME LIFE INTO THE AREA.

BUT I SEE OFF IN THE BACK SOMEWHERE.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IDEA.

I DON'T SEE NO REASON FOR DISAPPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILLADY SMITH. COUNCILMEMBER HOLLEMAN

RECOGNIZED. >> FIRST THOMPKINS LANE IT'S NARROW AND ADDING TWO TRIPLEXES, SIX UNITS, THAT'S QUITE A BIT OF TRAFFIC IN HOUSES THAT ARE SPACED OUT.

I DON'T SEE THIS AS BENEFICIAL TO THE AREA.

COMING TO MY WARD AND THE PEOPLE THAT I TALKED TO.

I DID HAVE TWO HOUSEHOLDS THAT EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT. BUT LOW VISIBILITY.

SMALL ROAD. IT'S A DEAD END.

I MEAN -- I DROVE DOWN TO THE VERY END OF IT AND THE LEAVES ARE SCRATCHING THE SIDE OF MY CAR IF THAT GIVES AN IDEA.

WHETHER THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE, I CAN'T SAY.

AND TELL YOU FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND ALL I HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN RECOGNIZED.

>> TO ECHO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER IT'S A NARROW ROAD BUT YOU HAVE TO DRIVE DOWN AND LOOK AT IT. I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S OUT OF PLACE. IT NEEDS -- SOMETHING NEEDS TO GO THERE. I WOULD BE HAPPY FOR SOMETHING TO BE THERE RATHER THAN WHAT IS THERE NOW.

IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO BE IMPROVEMENT FOR THAT LANE.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF AREAS IN THE CITY THAT ARE UNDERUTILIZED AND KIND OF LIKE INFILL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US WELCOMING TO PEOPLE TO INFILL AND MAKE THE PLACES NICE.

IF WE HAVE TO WIDEN THE ROAD OR DO SOMETHING, AS ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS SAID, THEY ALMOST DESERVE THAT ANYWAY.

IT'S A CITY ROAD. YOU KNOW, THEY DESERVE THAT.

BUT IT WOULD BE HARD. BECAUSE THERE IS A CEMETERY WHEN YOU TURN IN, THERE A CEMETERY ON ONE SIDE AND HOUSES THAT GO ALL THE WAY DOWN. BUT IT KIND OF GOES INTO NO MAN'S LAND. IF IT WAS COMMERCIAL OR WHATEVER, NOBODY WOULD KNOW IT. IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE PUTTING IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S AT THE END OF THE DEAD END AND GOES TO NOWHERE. I HAVEN'T HEARD AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID ABOUT THE RESIDENTS OR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

AS IT LOOKS NOW YOU CAN'T BUT HELP THE AREA.

>> THAT'S MY THOUGHTS. >> THANK YOU, ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT ABOUT THIS ZONING CASE? HEARING NONE. MR. TYNDALL, PROCEED.

WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 2, ORDINANCE 10-2020-21.

>> THIS IS OUR CASE, Z21, 2020. APPLICATION OF FAITH INVESTMENTS CARE OF CHRIS BLACKWELL. 2.48 ACRES AND PROPOSED AG, SUPPOSED TO GO TO R4. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF NORTH WHITFIELD ROAD, AT THE NEEDMORE ROAD INTERSECTION.

THE OTHER ZONING CASE YOU HEARD FIRST IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT PICTURE OUTSIDE OF THE ZOOM.

AND IN CITY WARD 9. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A LOT OF

[00:30:02]

SMALLER RESIDENTIAL AND A LOT OF AG, STILL IN THIS AREA FROM PREVIOUS FARMS AND OTHER PROPERTY THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED YET. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS.

THERE IS NO SEWER AVAILABLE ON THE STREET BUT THERE IS IN THE AREA. TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED.

NOT THAT YOU GET A LOT OF TRAFFIC OUT OF 2.5 ACRES HOWEVER THIS AREA IS "F." AND NOT JUST A "F" BUT A SAFETY ISSUE AND WHY THE CITY HAS STEPPED IN AND DOING A PROJECT OUT THERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THE PLANNING AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PHASE IS TAKING PLACE THIS YEAR TO MY UNDERSTANDING. THIS WAS ALSO DEFERRED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LAST MONTH AND REQUEST THAT WE INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT A ZONE CHANGE ON IMPROVEMENTS AND AFTER OUR RESEARCH AND CONFERRING WITH OTHER PLANNERS.

IT'S NOT ADVISED THAT YOU CONDITION A ZONING CASE.

IT'S REALLY ON THE BORDERLINE OF CONTRACT ZONING.

EVEN IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO PROVIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE FUTURE. WE REALLY EQUATED THIS SIMILARLY TO THE WARFIELD BOULEVARD REZONING WE HAD RECENTLY OFF OF VIRGINIA HILLS. WHERE THAT WAS TURNED DOWN MULTIPLE TIMES UNTIL THE ROAD WAS COMPLETED.

ONCE THE ROAD WAS COMPLETED IT WAS CONSIDERED.

I BELIEVE THIS ONE MAY BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPROVE THAT SIGHT DISTANCE AND CONGESTION AND SAFETY AT THAT TIME. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ALSO PROVIDED CONCERNS OVER THE CAPACITY OF GLEN ELLEN MIDDLE AND NORTHEAST ELEMENTARY BUT DID NOT HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE LOCATION TO THE SCHOOL SITE. THE HISTORIC ESTIMATE IS 29 UNITS FOR POPULATION APPROACHING 78 PEOPLE.

IN THE TRENTON ROAD PLANNING AREA.

THE STAFF -- SHOW THE PICTURES, GLEN ALLEN ON THE RIGHT AND CORN FIELD ON THE LEFT. AND THERE IS THE SIGN, AND GLEN ELLEN ACROSS THE STREET AND THERE FROM GLEN ELLEN PARKING LOT. AND TO THE RIGHT IS A SMALL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND TO THE LEFT.

ONE OTHER THING TO NOTE BEFORE TO GIVE YOU RECOMMENDATION.

STAFF DOES SEE THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY AS MULTIFAMILY BUT IF WE ZONE NOW IT'S HARD WITH THE SITE PLAN.

THESE LOTS ARE NOT SUITED WELL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THEY ARE APPROACHING 400 FEET DEEP AND SUITED FOR MULTIFAMILY IN THE FUTURE. AND IF THEY WANT TO DO LARGER DEVELOPMENTS AT THE TIME. WITH ALL OF THAT SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL. THE LONG RANGE OF THIS PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE MULTIFAMILY BUT THE SITUATION AT WHITFIELD ROAD AND NEEDMORE ROAD. THE PROPOSED ZONING SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETE.

AND NO OTHER IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL. >> COUNCILMEMBER HENLEY.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. I GUESS I AM HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE CONSISTENCY THAT IS COMING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION RIGHT NOW. WE GOT DOWN THE ROAD AND DOING 105 HOUSES. AND THIS ONE -- AND THAT'S APPROVED. AND THEN WE GOT THIS ONE THAT IS DISAPPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL AND LESS FAMILIES.

IS IT BECAUSE IT'S CLOSER TO NEEDMORE INTERSECTION THAT IT

GOT DISAPPROVAL? >> RIGHT, THIS IS 500 FEET FROM NEEDMORE ROAD AND THE OTHER PROJECT 600 FEET FROM 101ST.

THEY ARE BOTH CLOSE AND DON'T GET ME WRONG BOTH IMPROVED IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS MORE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF NEEDMORE ROAD AND THE BACKING OF WHITFIELD ON THE NORTH SIDE TO NEEDMORE ROAD. IT GETS TO THE POINT THAT PEOPLE CAN'T GET THROUGH THE INTERSECTION UP THERE.

IT'S A FINE LINE. >> IT IS, AND THE 105 AND LESS THAN A HALF MILE AWAY AND IN THAT SAME AREA YOU ARE TALKING

ABOUT. >> BUT THE TRAFFIC REPORT FROM THIS SITE THE MAJORITY OF TRIPS GO SOUTH THROUGH 101ST.

AND GOING SOUTH ON WHITFIELD ROAD.

I THINK THAT'S THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE THAT YOU SEE THE PRIMARY ROUTE OF THAT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO GO.

[00:35:03]

>> I DID TALK TO THE DEVELOPER ON THIS AND I HAVEN'T MADE UP MY MIND. HE SAID THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO DONATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WE ARE SEEKING FOR THE PROJECT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO IF WE ARE INTERESTED.

AND HE SAID HE'S ALSO WILLING TO WAIT UNTIL THE ROAD PROJECT IS DONE. I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T DO ZONING ON CONTINGENCY BUT SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HENLEY.

COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN. >> YES, I UNDERSTAND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND SOME THINGS AND THEY HAVE THESE RULES.

AND IT'S LIKE YES OR NO. BUT AS A BODY WE DON'T HAVE THOSE RULES YES OR NO. WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SENSE OF IT. IF WE WERE DEPENDING ON SOMEONE ELSE TO POSSIBLY DO SOMETHING, I COULD SAY WELL IT MAY NOT HAPPEN, IT MAY HAPPEN. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH APPROVING THIS ZONING KNOWING THAT WE, THE CITY, ARE GOING TO FIX THE ROAD.

IT'S NOT AN IF, IT'S ON THE PLANS.

IT'S GOING TO GET DONE. AND SO I WOULD HIM OR WHOEVER IT IS TO WAIT A YEAR WHEN THEY COULD GO AHEAD ON AND GET THEIR BALL ROLLING AND THE CITY GET THEIR BALL ROLLING.

AND IF HE'S GOING TO DONATE PROPERTY AND NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PROCESS BUT IT DOES PLAY IN MINE.

TO DONATE PROBLEM. AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM VOTING FOR THIS.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO BE

RECOGNIZE. >> MAYOR I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> GO AHEAD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED COUNCILLADY SMITH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE SCHOOL, GLEN

ELLEN. >> DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, AND IF I GO BACK TO THE AERIAL PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE THAT.

>> CAN YOU SEE THAT? >> THE PARENT PICK-UP LANE BUT

ONE OF THE LANES ACROSS. >> THOSE WILL CHANGE GIVEN THE

NEW ROAD PROJECT. >> YEAH, THAT IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SCHOOL. WITH TRAFFIC, I KNOW THAT SCHOOL IS OUT RIGHT NOW BUT IF TALKING ABOUT BUILDING 29 UNITS WITH RENTAL PROPERTY AND TALKING ABOUT MORE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA.

AND LONGER LINES FROM GLEN ELLEN AND I USED TO PICK UP MY GRAND BABY THERE AND HATED IT FOR THE TRAFFIC.

I AM NOT AGAINST PEOPLE BUILDING AND ESTABLISHING PROPERTY FOR RENTAL. I AM SAYING THAT THE TRAFFIC AND THE CLOSENCEESS TO THE SCHOOL. AND IF WE WIDEN WHITFIELD ROAD AND I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. AND NOW TO ERECT THE APARTMENTS AND I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM WITH THE SCHOOL TRAFFIC AND WORK TRAFFIC AND ALREADY OVERLOADED. I DON'T KNOW.

I AM THINKING ABOUT IT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILLADY SMITH.

ANYONE WITH A QUESTION? MR. TYNDALL.

>> THERE IS FIVE LETTERS IN YOUR PACKET.

FIVE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION. HEARING NONE, PROCEED.

ITEM 3, ORDINANCE 11-2020-21. MR. TYNDALL.

>> THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF JOE ROBERTS, THE AGENT IS CAL BURCHETT. IT'S .49 ACRE AND EXISTING R3 AND ASKING TO GO R6. IT'S LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF OLD ASHLAND CITY ROAD AND MARCUS LANE.

AND YOU SEE ON THE AERIAL WHERE THEY GRAYED THAT OUT AND DOING A LOT OF WORK ON THAT PROPERTY. THIS AREA IS PRETTY MUCH DOMINATED BY R3 AND R6. THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF USE IS IT IS AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOT.

WE WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP SIX OR SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE STRUCTURE HAS IRREPARABLE FLOOD DAMAGE, FROM BURST PIPES AND NOT FROM FLOOD WATERS. IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> R3 IS AN EXISTING LOT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX IF NOT SUBDIVIDED SINCE THE 90S. THIS PROPERTY IS JUST SMALL ENOUGH THEY CAN NOT GET TWO TRIPLEXES ON IT AND WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ONE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD SIX OR

[00:40:04]

IT'S AN INTERESTING AREA. HERE'S THE HOME IN QUESTION.

WOULDN'T EVEN RECOMMEND GOING IN THERE WITHOUT A RESPIRATOR.

THE MOLD IS PRETTY BAD IN THAT PROPERTY.

MARTHA LANE ACROSS THE STREET. A MIX OF DIFFERENT AGES OF TRIPLEXES AND DUPLEXES AND FURTHER DOWN A BUNCH OF Q QUADPLEXES. AND SOME LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUT TRIPLEXES. THIS IS THE HOME THAT SEPARATES THOMAS LUMBER ON THE RIGHT AND OLD ASHLAND CITY, LOOKING DOWN FROM THE PROPERTY, APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE MAIL TRUCK IS WHERE THE HOME IS. AND LOOKING BACK THE OTHER WAY UP ASHLAND CITY ROAD. IT'S IN COUNCIL WARD 7.

THE ONLY COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM DEPARTMENTS IS ABOUT THE SCHOOL COMMENTS ABOUT CLARKSVILLE HIGH. HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WE SAY SIX UNITS. IF THE APPLICANT CAN GET SEVEN UNITS MORE POWER TO THEM. AND GET CREATE WITH THE LOTS AND IF YOU PUT ALLEY BEHIND IT, YOU CAN GO TO ZERO LOT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL. THE REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THAT THE PRESENT R3 IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT, UNLESS MORE USEFUL FOR THE LAND USE PLAN OR ERROR IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE EXISTING R3 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROVIDES RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE PRIMARILY RENTAL IN NATURE. AND R6 IS SINGLE FAMILY IS TYPICALLY OWNER OCCUPIED. BUT THAT PROVIDES A BETTER BUFFER FROM THE INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS NEARBY.

AND BASED ON THE PROXIMITY OF THAT M1 IT'S MORE TO HAVE RENTERS THAN OWNERS. THAT SAID, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS.

NO COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST REGISTERED WITH THE PLANNING

COMMISSION. >> ANY MEMBER OF

COUNCIL-COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND I WANTED TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND ON WHY I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION SIDENED UP APPROVAL THIS ONE. AND NO ONE AROUND THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION OF IT. AND ALSO LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE WE ALL KNOW THAT WE ARE IN A STATE OF HOUSING CRISIS, AND R6 WAS CREATED TO ALLOW MORE LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED.

SMALLER HOMES TO ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT COULD HELP WITH THAT AND UNLIKE IF THE AREA WAS ALREADY UNDEVELOPED.

YOU KNOW AND THE INDUSTRIAL ASPECT WASN'T THERE YET.

THAT WOULD BE ONE THING. BUT WHOEVER PURCHASES THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY GOING TO KNOW THAT THOMAS LUMBER -- EXCUSE ME, THE M1 IS RIGHT THERE BEHIND YOU AND OPERATING.

AND THAT'S THE LOGIC THAT A LOT OF US HAD IN APPROVING THIS.

NOBODY IS GETTING SURPRISED. YOU KNEW WHAT I GOT INTO, IN YOUR BACKYARD AND CHOSE TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE.

IT'S AFFORDABLE AND MORE LIKE AS A WIN FOR THE COMMUNITY THAN RESTRICTING IT TO ONLY ACCOMMODATING THE RENTAL MARKET.

THAT AT LEAST MY LOGIC THAT I CAN SPEAK TO AND COMMENTS AS WE

DEBATED IT. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE WITH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ZONING CASE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT MAYOR.

>> ALL RIGHT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> THE COUNCILMAN THAT JUST SPOKE YOU ALWAYS HAVE A GOOD SALES PITCH ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE RENTAL HOUSING OR APARTMENTS.

SO IF THIS GOING TO BE APARTMENTS, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO IF THEY WRITTEN IT FOR $1 $105,000 HOW IS THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

>> IS THAT A QUESTION FOR COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT.

>> I'M JUST ASKING TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A GOOD SALES PITCH THAT COUNCILMAN GARRETT OFTEN USES BUT SOMETIMES IT'S REALLY NOT THE TRUTH.

>> COUNCILLADY SMITH, CAN I ASK YOU TO AVOID THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION PLEASE. WE DON'T WANT TO ACCUSE.

>> YOU ARE RIGHT I DON'T HAVE TO SAY HIS NAME BUT THE COUNCILMEMBER BEFORE WE ALWAYS USED THAT SALES PITCH,

[00:45:05]

>> THAT'S BETTER. >> IF YOU APPROVE, APPROVE WHAT IS RIGHT THAN MAKING UP SOMETHING THAT MAKE IT SOUND

GOOD TO THE PUBLIC, THANK YOU. >> OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT YOU HAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR R3, SO ANY REFERENCE OF A BAIT AND SWITCH THAT I AM TRYING TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR YOU TO PURCHASE. I DON'T TYPICALLY PURCHASE AN APARTMENT OR UNIT R3. WHICH IS A TRIPLEX.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED RIGHT NOW TO SUPPORT THE RENTAL MARKET IN THREE UNITS AVAILABLE TO RENT RIGHT NOW.

SO WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IS GOING AWAY FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THREE RENTAL UNITS AND TO BUILD SIX TO SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. THAT WILL BE IN AN AFFORDABLE RANGE. AND SO I'M JUST MERELY REPEATING THAT THE APPLICANT STATED IN THEIR APPLICATION AND WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

I DON'T WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER, ALTHOUGH I AM A REALTOR AND I LOVE SELLING PROPERTY. I HAVE NO DIRECT TIES TO THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER WHO IS DEVELOPING THIS R6 PARCEL.

NOW I CAN LEND SOME SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE INTO THE INVENTORY OF CLARKSVILLE TO SPEAK TO THE NEED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. CONSIDERING THAT 4-5 YEARS AGO WE AVERAGED 2,000 HOUSES ON THE MARKET PER MONTH.

NOW WE ARE DOWN TO 400 TO 500 PER MONTH.

THAT'S A HOUSING CRISIS. CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF BUYERS LOOKING FOR HOUSES. AND YOU TALK TO ANY REALTOR THEY WILL TELL YOU ABOUT HOW THEY ARE SUBMITTING 13 OFFERS FOR A BUYER AND GETTING BEAT OUT EVEN OFFERING 5-10,000 MORE THAN THE HOUSE IS WORTH. WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IF WE DON'T PROVIDE ENOUGH HOUSES THE PRICES WILL SKY ROCKET. IT'S BASIC ECONOMICS AND NOT'S

SALES PITCH. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT. COUNCILMEMBER HOLLEMAN.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR, I WILL KEEP IT BRIEF.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN OPTION OF TRIPLEX, SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT OR A HOUSE THAT IS FALLING DOWN.

THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT GOES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. WHAT THE SPEAKER BEFORE ME SAID ABOUT THE HOUSING MARKET IS VERY MUCH CORRECT.

HOUSES ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE SCARCE.

AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ADDRESS IT.

AND AS YOU SEE THE REFLECTION OF THE PRICE, THE PRICE IS GOING UP AND SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR EVERYONE TO

CONSIDER. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER BURKHART. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR I WILL TRY TO ADDRESS THE SPEAKER'S CONCERN AND ADDRESS THE INVENTORY. 2,000 HOUSES IS NORMAL FOR CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS, WE'RE SITTING IN THE 400S. WHAT THAT EQUATES TO A HOUSE GOING ON THE MARKET AND $175,000 IS WHAT WE CONSIDER AFFORDABLE.

IN THE MORNING 10 OFFERS AND THE HOUSE IS 185-190,000.

THAT'S WHAT IS HAPPENING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE'RE ALL TRYING TO DO IT AND INFILL PROJECTS LIKE WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THESE ZONING CASES IS WHAT WE NEED.

BECAUSE WHEN WE DON'T GET AFFORDABLE LAND, YOU CAN'T DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT GO TOGETHER AND PEOPLE ARE SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE IS A STORY IN THE PAPER A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ABOUT SPRAWL. EVERYBODY IS MAD ABOUT THE SPRAWL. THE GROUP THAT KEEPS THAT FROM HAPPENING SITS AROUND IN THIS HORSESHOE.

WE HAVE TO TAKE THESE PIECES OF PROPERTY AND WATER AND SEWER ARE AVAILABLE. ARE ROADS GREAT? NO, BUT I WILL QUOTE A PREVIOUS SPEAKER WHO SAID, THAT'S OUR FAULT AND WE WILL TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

BUT WHEN FAMILIES HAVE SIT HERE ON THEIR LAND FOR YEARS AND HUNDREDS -- SOMETIMES HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN SOME OF THESE ZONINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THEY HAVEN'T CREATED ONE TRAFFIC PROBLEM FOR ANY OF US.

[00:50:02]

LIVES GETTING CHANGED. >> POINT OF ORDER, CAN WE GET

BACK TO THE ORDINANCE. >> HE'S ON THE ORDINANCE.

>> I AM TALKING IN GENERAL, BUSINESS AND MRS. SMITH, I'M OKAY. I WANT TO SAY THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT PROJECTS LIKE THIS INFILL PROJECTS ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHICH I THINK THAT COUNCILLADY SMITH IS AFTER. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL ALLEN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> I WAS LOOKING AT THE THOUGHT OF INFILL PROJECTS.

AND GROWING UP IN TOWN, I HAD TO EXPLAIN THIS TO A RELATIVE OF MINE THE OTHER DAY. YOU KNOW THESE HOUSES THEY ARE STACKING THEM ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

THAT'S THE CRAZIEST THING YOU DON'T HAVE YARD.

I SAID THEY DON'T WANT A YARD. HE SAID, WHO DON'T WANT A YARD.

I SAID WE ARE H-OLD -- A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT A YARD.

AND AS CLARKSVILLE GROWS WE ARE NOT ABLE TO OFFER HALF ACRE LOTS. AND WE ARE GROWING TOO FAST AND DENSITY HELPS. THE MORE DENSE AN AREA IS, THE MORE -- LET'S JUST SAY RESTAURANTS LOOK AROUND AND THEY LOOK AT ROOFTOPS. THERE HAS TO BE ENOUGH PEOPLE IN THE AREA TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

AND WE'RE SO SPREAD OUT THAT THE OLD WAY OF DOING BUSINESS IS NOT GOING TO WORK ANYMORE. AND WHEN WE CAME UP WITH THE R6 I WAS VERY -- I WAS DEFINITELY FOR IT.

AFTER I UNDERSTOOD IT AND WHAT ALL IT MEANT.

AND IT'S LIKE FOR SOME PEOPLE THEY PUT ALL OF THOSE HOUSES RIGHT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. THAT'S NOT MY CONCERN.

THE PEOPLE WHO BUYING THOSE HOUSES WANT IT LIKE THAT.

THEY ARE FINE IT. AND IF IT HELPS US AND HELPS FILL IN THESE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE -- I'D RATHER HAVE THIS TRIPLEX OR WHATEVER RIGHT HERE AND THAT HOUSE, THAT WHITE HOUSE RIGHT THERE. THAT TRIPLEX WILL BRING IN MORE TAX DOLLARS. I DON'T KNOW, WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT AND INFILL IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO CONSTANTLY LOOK AT. ALL IT DOESN'T WORK AND IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS BUT A LOT OF TIMES IT'S A GREAT THING.

TAKE SOMETHING THAT IS OLD AND CLEAR IT OUT AND AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID THAT THE LAND IS CHEAPER.

YOU EVER TRIED TO PRICE A LOT IN CLARKSVILLE NOW? YOU HAVE A DEVELOPERS I AM LOOKING FOR A LOT.

IF YOU CAN TAKE SOMETHING OLD AND TEAR IT DOWN AND CHEAPER TO BE ON THAT PROPERTY. THEY ARE NOT GIVING MAX RATE FOR THE PROPERTY AND THEY ARE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT CHEAPER.

AND STILL MAKE PROFIT AND A HOUSE WILL BE ON THE MARKET THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE. SO THAT'S JUST MY TAKE ON IT.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, ANYONE HAVE COMMENTS ON

THIS ZONING CASE? >> YES.

>> COUNCILLADY SMITH YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> YES, YOU KNOW TRIPLEXES TO ME IS NOT A HOUSE FOR A FAMILY.

FOR A FAMILY WITH FIVE CHILDREN. DEPENDING ON THE ROOMS. SO EVERYBODY DON'T WANT A PIECE LIKE A 20 -- A 20 FOOT PIECE OF LAND OR HOWEVER YOU SAY IT, 20 SQUARE FEET PIECE OF LAND WITH A HOUSE SITTING ON IT. AND SOME PEOPLE WANT YARDS AND WE WILL SEE BASED YOUR COMMENTS AND WHO WILL LIVE IN THESE TRIPLEXES. WE'LL SEE, WE'LL WAIT AND SEE.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILLADY SMITH. ANYBODY ELSE.

MR. TYNDALL, ITEM 4, ORDINANCE 12-2020-21.

>> THANK YOU, THIS IS THE APPLICANT SYD HEDRICK.

[00:55:04]

R6 IN THE FRONT AND R4 IN THE BACK AND ONE DRIVEWAY BACK TO R4 AND THREE UNITS ACCESSED OFF OF THAT DRIVEWAY FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS OFF THE FRONT OF THE ROAD.

THE BREAKDOWN IS .29 .29.29 OF D PROO -- .42 AND YOU SEE THE BLOCK OF R4 THAT IS DEVELOPED. THE PROJECT FRONTS WOODMONT INTERSECTION, IN COUNCIL WARD 6. IT'S CURRENTLY A VACANT CLEARED LOT. THIS APPLICATION WOULD HAVE TO PUT SIDEWALK ON THE PROPERTY. AND HERE IS A FAIRLY LEVEL PIECE OF LAND. LOOKING UP TOWARDS GREENWOOD.

THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET. YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THE HOMES IN THE AREA ARE COMPARABLE TO LOT 6 LOTS.

AND THE APPLICANT SUGGESTS THAT THE HOMES ON WOODMONT TO UTILIZE THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THERE WAS NO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS EXCEPT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, CONCERN FOR THREE SCHOOLS. OUR ESTIMATE WOULD BE SEVEN UNITS, FOUR FOR THE QUADPLEX AND THREE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.

PRETTY MUCH MAXING OUT THE POTENTIAL OF THIS PROPERTY.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS.

THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE R4 AND R6 ARE NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE ESTABLISHED AREA.

AND THE PLAN INDICATES ENCOURAGED FOR A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES IN THE COMMUNITY. AGAIN SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED

AS PART OF THE R6 DEVELOPMENT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU MR. TYNDALL.

ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ZONING ORDINANCE? HEARING NONE. MR. TYNDALL NOW ON ITEM 5,

ORDINANCE 13-2020-21. >> YOU WILL SEE A THEME GOING ON THIS MONTH AND AS WELL AS NEXT MONTH SOME CASES.

OUR CASE Z-26-2020. THE APPLICATION OF MARY DAVIS HOLT, THE AGENT IS BOBBY POWERS WITH GREENSPACE PARTNERS.

THIS IS 30.77 ACRES AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO GO FROM C5 TO R6 AND R2. OF THE 30.7 ACRES 24.72 ACRES OF R6 AND 1.67 ACRES OF R2. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUGHT WEST CORNER OF SOUTH ASHLAND CITY ROAD AND AVONDALE DRIVE. IT'S A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

JUST NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREENWOOD -- CUMBERLAND ROAD DOWN THERE. AND THIS IS ACROSS THE ROAD AS WE SHOW IN THE PICTURES FROM THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON THERE.

IT'S A LARGE CHUNK OF C5. WELL OVER 30 ACRES AND KEEPING A SMALL PORTION OF THE C5 CONTAINED IN FRONT.

THE APPLICANT STATED IT WOULD NOT CONNECT TO THIS APPLICATION IN THE FUTURE. IT'S A HIGH PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEY WOULD NOT GET ANOTHER DRIVEWAY OUT TO THE BYPASS.

HOWEVER THEY CAN CONNECT TO AVONDALE DRIVE WHICH IS A CITY ROAD ACROSS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.

THERE IS THE CITY ROAD LEADING UP TO THE AVONDALE APARTMENTS AND THERE YOU SEE A LOT OF DIRT WORK.

THE SAME DEVELOPER HAS GRADED THAT ACROSS THE STREET FOR TOWNHOUSES. THIS IS COTTONWOOD DRIVE.

AT THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY AND YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED SOME LETTERS AND WE DID HAVE SOME OPPOSITION TO THIS.

COTTONWOOD DRIVE IS A STUB ROAD AND APPEARED TO BE A CUL-DE-SAC FOR TIME. THE AGE OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND THE NEW PROPERTY, UNLESS YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND LOOK AT THE PLAT YOU THINK THAT CUL-DE-SAC IS THE END OF THE PROPERTY.

[01:00:03]

AND FURTHER YOU SEE THAT WE PUT A SIGN AT THE END OF THE STUB ROAD AND ASHLAND CITY BYPASS. THE DEPARTMENT NOTES, THIS MY REQUIRE OFF SITE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCESS TO THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY. NO OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS RECEIVED EXCEPT FOR THE SCHOOL CONCERNS.

APPLICANT'S ESTIMATE FOR UNITS. THEY SAID 70 UNITS TOTAL.

FOR 189 POPULATION BECAUSE OF THE VARYING TOPOGRAPHY.

AND YOU HAVE BEEN TO THIS SITE, YOU SEE IT'S THE SIDE OF THE HILL. OUR HISTORICAL ESTIMATES ARE QUITE HIGHER AND DOES LOOK MAYBE A RED FLAG.

TYPICALLY WHEN WE GET R6 SUBDIVISIONS THEY ARE MAXING OUT THE PROPERTY. THIS CANNOT MAX OUT DUE TO THE TOP OGRAPHY. AND R6 ALLOWS THEM WHEN THEY NEED TO GET NARROW ON THE LOTS AND GET NARROW TO THAT R6.

AND A BUS STOP IS A CRITERIA BEING NEAR MASS TRANSIT FOR R6 AT AVONDALE ROAD. IN THE SOUTHERN HILLS PLANNING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.

THE R2 AND R6 CLASSIFICATIONS ARE NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA OR ESTABLISHED USES.

AND RESIDENTIAL USES SUCH AS MASS TRANSIT AND RETAIL ARE IN THE AREA, AND SIDEWALKS REQUIRED.

THE C5 ARTERIAL DISTRICT DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO SUCH PROPERTY. AND THE R2 AND R6 WILL REDUCE THE TRAFFIC. AND THE TRAFFIC GO DOWN AND YOU WILL SEE MORE TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10 A.M. TO 7 P.M..

AND WITH HOMES YOU SEE TRAFFIC AT 6, 7 A.M. AND LESS TRAFFIC IN THE MIDDLE PART AND MORE TRAFFIC WHEN THEY RETURN FROM HOME.

AND OVERALL A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF CARS PER ACRE FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD. PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> COUNCILMEMBER STREETMAN.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. TYNDALL I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SPOKE ABOUT R6 AND ISN'T IT TYPICALLY USED FOR INFILL VERSUS THIS RATHER LARGE LOT OF LAND. I THINK R6 IS A GREAT ZONING BUT MY CONCERN TO MAKE SMALLER LOTS A LARGE PIECE OF LAND HERE.

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND I THINK THAT ANOTHER COUNCILLADY HAS TALKED TO ME WHEN DEVELOPED. MY PREDESSOR DR. RIPPLE IT WAS DEVELOPED MORE INFILL AND THEN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AND PUT MORE SHOULD THAN SHALL IN THE ORDINANCE.

THERE IS A BIT OF A JUDGMENT CALL TO BE MADE HERE.

THIS IS THE LARGEST TRACT OF LAND ZONED R6 TO DATE.

WE DID APPROXIMATELY 6.5 ACRES OFF OF RINGGOLD ROAD AND IF YOU HAVE SEEN THAT HUGELY SUCCESSFUL.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES.

AND THOUGH IT SAYS R6 AND LOOKS DAUNTING BECAUSE OF THE ACREAGE.

AND TRY TO GET A TOPOGRAPHY MAP AND WE HAVE DRIVEN BY AND IT LOOKS LIKE A GREEN HILL. AND THERE IS ISSUES TO KEEP THE UNITS TO 70. AGAIN IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL.

THEY WILL BE NARROWER LOTS THAT MAKES IT MORE AFFORDABLE.

AND ONE CAR GARAGES WILL BE REQUIRED AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUSH TO GET THE SIDEWALK OUT TO THE BUS STOP AT ASHLAND CITY ROAD. YES THIS IS NOT TYPICAL OF R6 BEING INFILL. HOWEVER THIS IS A C5 PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH VALUE BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY FOR COMMERCIAL USES. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE

QUESTION. >> THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION, I

WILL SAY THAT, THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLEMAN YOU

[01:05:02]

ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU MAYOR.

ONE OF THE BIGEF CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS ON COTTONWOOD DRIVE IS THE ASHLAND CITY ROAD BYPASS. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THE DEVELOPER CONNECT TO AVONDALE? THEY DON'T WANT THROUGH TRAFFIC,

THAT'S THE CONCERN. >> THAT'S EVERYONE'S CONCERN ON A STUB ROAD. THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND HIGHWAY SUPERVISOR AND MYSELF HAVE TALKED ABOUT CREATING A SIGN ON STUB ROADS, ESPECIALLY KEY ONES THAT ARE NEAR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. A LOT OF STUB ROADS THAT WILL NEVER CONNECT BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT OR A STREAM IN THE WAY OR STUFF FROM THE 50S AND 60S.

BUT SOME MODERN STUBS NOT PART OF A SUBDIVISION.

IT WILL LOOK SIMILAR TO NO PARKING SIGN, THIS IS INTENDED FOR FUTURE CONNECTION, AND CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MORE INFORMATION. AND A LOT OF TIMES I AM NOT SURE THAT THE REALTORS KNOW HOW TO IDENTIFY A TURN AROUND.

AND TURN AROUND YOU SEE A CURVE ALL THE WAY.

AND THIS HAS NO SIDEWALK OR CURVE AND NO HOMES AT THE END.

TO THE TRAINED EYE IT'S A CONNECTION.

I DID CALCULATIONS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THINKING THIS QUESTION WOULD COME UP AND IT DIDN'T.

YOU HAVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT UP THE ROAD TO THE BYPASS.

TO GET TO THE HOMES ON COTTON WOULD TAKE FIVE MINUTES AND OVER TWO MILES. WITH THAT CONNECTION IT DROPS TO TWO MINUTES AT 1.2 MILES. THAT'S HOW WE LOOK FOR CONNECTIONS. NOT JUST FOR DISPERSING TRAFFIC BUT EMERGENCY SERVICES. AND YOU JUST COME DOWN THE BYPASS, HIT AVONDALE AND COME IN THE SUBDIVISION THAT WAY.

>> YOU THINK THAT'S A CHANCE THEY WILL CONNECT TO AVONDALE?

>> WE WOULD REQUIRE IT TO CONNECT, UNLESS A REASON NOT TO AND WHY WE HAVE THEM CONNECT. AS FAR AS THE CUT-THROUGH GOES THIS IS NOT A STRAIGHT SHOT. I THINK THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT THAT. OBVIOUSLY.

PEOPLE DON'T LIKE CHANGE. BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE -- YOU KIND OF HAVE TO GO OUT AND AROUND TO USE AS A CUT THROUGH THAN EDISON FERRY WITH THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL.

I DON'T SEE IT USED MUCH EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

>> COOL. >> COUNCILLADY STREETMAN.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION BASED OFF KNOW AN E-MAIL THAT I RECEIVED AND OTHERS MAY HAVE RECEIVED. I WANTED GET CLARIFICATION FOR MYSELF AND THE RESIDENT. I THINK IT WAS STATED THAT THEY WERE TOLD THAT A STREET THAT ENDS IN DRIVE WOULD NEVER BE A CUL-DE-SAC. THAT DRIVE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THAT IT CONNECT TO SOMETHING ELSE.

JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THAT IS INFORMATION THEY RECEIVED FROM THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OR --

>> OUR ADDRESSING MANUAL WE DON'T DETERMINE, WE LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE USE COURT OR LANE FOR SIDE STREETS BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRE. AGAIN WHEN THIS WAS PUT IN, IT WAS INTENDED TO CONNECT AND I THINK THAT DRIVE IS APPROPRIATE.

AND THAT SAID OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY HAVE MORE RESTRICT NAMING CONVENTIONS AND HOW IS REQUIRED WHAT THE ROAD IS NAMED.

THIS IS NAMED FROM THE 80S. SORT OF REGIONAL THING, THAT'S WHAT I SAY ABOUT THAT. BUT WE DON'T PUT WEIGHT ON WHAT THE ROAD IS NAMED WHAT IT CAN BE.

>> I WANTED GET THAT CLARIF CLARIFICATION. AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE MORE QUESTION AND SMALLER LOTS I ASSUME SHORTER DRIVEWAYS AND LESS ROOM FOR PARKING AND MORE PARKING IN THE STREET.

AND MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR KIDS ON BIKES OR THAT KIND OF THING IF LOOKING FOR FAMILIES TO MOVE IN.

>> R6 UNLESS BUILT OFF OF ALLEY AND SAME SETBACK.

NO DIFFERENCE THERE, THEY ARE JUST NARROWER.

YOU HAVE A CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY -- TWO CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY POTENTIALLY. WE HAVE PLENTY OF SUBDIVISIONS THAT WIDE DRIVEWAYS AND PARK IN THE STREET.

>> I NOTICED THAT NEWER SUBDIVISIONS SEEM TO HAVE A LOT NARROWER ROADS THAN IN THE PAST. AND IN MY OLDER SUBDIVISIONS IN MY WARD, SOME OF THOSE SUBDIVISIONS ARE MORE NARROWER

ROAD AND IF WE FACE THAT. >> NO, THE THROUGH ROAD IS 24 FEET OF PAVEMENT AND SIDE ROAD IS 22.

IF YOU HAVE SMALLER ROAD 40 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND 50 ON LARGER

[01:10:06]

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ZONING CASE? HEARING NONE.

MR. TYNDALL NOW AT ITEM 7, ORDINANCE 15.

>> OUR CASE Z-2020-21, AND THIS IS APPLICANT MARY DAVIS HOLT AND THEY DECIDED TO SEPARATE. THIS IS 2.7 ACRES AND ZONED R1 AND REQUESTING TO GO TO C2. AND IT'S AN INTENTION OF C2 TO THE EAST. THIS IS EXACTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE.

AND THE C2 PROPERTY IS THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON OUT THERE. THIS PROPERTY'S TOPOGRAPHY IS VERY ROUGH AND YOU MAY SEE ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY OR COMMERCIAL UNITS TYING IN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT GOING ON OUT THERE. AND ALSO IN CITY WARD 7.

THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT IS TO EXTEND THE C2 ZONE TO THE EAST MAINTAINING THE R1 BUFFER FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH. THERE WERE CONCERNS TO CONNECT TO THE BEL AIR SUBDIVISION AND THERE IS A LOT IN BETWEEN AND THIS LOT DOES NOT TOUCH THAT SUBDIVISION.

THE DEVELOPER OWNS THAT PROPERTY AT BEL AIR AND TOLD IT'S NOT

GOING TO CONNECT TO THE BYPASS. >> AS A NATIVE OF NORTH CLARKSVILLE BEL AIR IS OFF OF FORT CAMPBELL.

BEVEARLILYEARLY -- BEVERLY HIL. >> SORRY, BEVERLY HILLS.

AND WITH THE TRAFFIC REDUCTION ACROSS THE STREET BALANCES OUT, ANY SLIGHT INCREASE OF TRAFFIC FROM C2.

AND AGAIN IF YOU HAVE BEEN OUT THERE A TURNING LANE IS NOW BEING INSTALLED OUT THERE BY THE DEVELOPER.

FOR DECEL AND EXCEL PURPOSES. AND THERE COULD ALSO BE IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS THE STREET. I DIDN'T MENTION THAT IN THE LAST ZONING CASE IN AVONDALE AND DECELING IN THAT AND MAKE IT A SAFER SITUATION. THE TREE GROWTH TO THE RIGHT IS THAT PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND YOU SEE IT FALL AWAY FROM THE ROAD AND AGAIN ACROSS THE STREET IS THAT ENTRANCE.

NO IMPACT TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WITH THE C2.

IT'S IN THE SOUTH CLARKSVILLE AREA.

PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, C2 DISTRICT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE C2 TO THE EAST. AND THE EXISTING PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDES A BUFFER TO THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH.

PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF ORDINANCE 15? HEARING NONE, MR. TYNDALL, ORDINANCE 15, ITEM 7.

>> THIS IS APPLICANT LUKE BAGGETT.

IT'S NOT AN EXTENSION OF R6 CLASSIFICATION.

AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT INTERSECTION OF SEVEN MILE FERRY ROAD AND EDMONSON FERRY ROAD. IN CITY WARD 7.

THE CITY IS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND STRUCTURE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SETBACKS AND BOTH VAC CANT -- VACANT.

THE CEMETERY IS ACROSS THE STREET, IN THE AERIALS.

AND CEMETERY ON THE LEFT. AND APPROACHING THAT WHITE BUILDING IN THE CORNER, AGAIN WE ALL PASSED 100 TIMES, USED TO BE KNOWN AS THE PUB BACK IN THE DAY.

THE ESTATE RIGHT THERE AND HAS A HOUSE BEHIND IT AND A VACANT LOT BEHIND THAT. THESE WILL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. AND THERE IS A PICTURE ACROSS THE STREET COMING UP WOODMONT. THERE WERE NO DEPARTMENT CONCERNS EXCEPT THE SCHOOL'S CONCERN OF NORMAN SMITH AND MIDDLE AND CENTRAL HIGH. SCHOOL SYSTEM CAPACITIES.

THE HISTORICAL ESTIMATES APPLICANT THINKS HE CAN GET SIX UNITS AND TYPO, NOT 72 PEOPLE IN SIX UNITS.

[01:15:02]

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF ORDINANCE

15? >> YES.

>> COUNCILLADY SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. WHAT WARD IS THAT IN?

>> WARD 7. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 8, WHICH IS

ORDINANCE 16. >> KEEP ROLLING AROUND.

20-2020. THE APPLICATION OF RIVER CHASE MARINE LLC, 40.18 ACRES OF R4 TO R2A.

FROM MULTIFAMILY TO SINGLE FAMILY.

THE PROPERTY FRONTS THE SOUTH FRONTAGE OF ASHLAND CITY ROAD, AND BEACON DRIVE INTERSECTION. ALSO IN COUNCIL WARD 7, A BUSY WARD THIS MONTH. THE TOPOGRAPHY BOARDED BY THE FLOODPLAIN. AND WITH A TALK TO THE APPLICANT TO REZONE BACK TO AG. THERE WAS A ZONING CASE A LITTLE OVER A YEAR ANOTHER AND DID R1 IN THE REAR.

THERE IS A SUBDIVISION OUT THERE GETTING FINISHED UP AND BUILD OFF OF GRANTON ROAD, ANNEXED PORTION.

AND WEREN'T GOING TO BUILD WITH A DRAW SOUTHEAST OF THE RIVER.

THERE IS A WATER TOWER BACK THERE YOU CAN SEE IN THE BOTTOM-RIGHT CORNER OF THIS PICTURE.

AND A NICE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE GREEN WAY POTENTIAL IN THE FUTURE, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS RESERVED IN THE R1 SECTION AND SHOULD RESERVE HERE. AND I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS PICTURE, SHOWS IT WELL. BEACON DRIVES COME FROM THE EAST AND CURVES AROUND THE WATER TOWER.

YOU CAN'T GO PAST WHERE THE TOWER AND RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT DIRT ROAD BACK THERE. AND SLIGHT POTENTIAL TO CONNECTION, BUT THE MAIN ENTRANCE ON THE FRONT.

I WILL SHOW THE PICTURES AND HAVE TO DO WORK FOR SUBDIVISION.

EITHER WAY FOR MULTIFAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY THIS IS WORK THAT HAD TO BE DONE. AS YOU APPROACH IT, I BELIEVE IT'S A MOTORCYCLE WORKS AND A FOOD TRUCK ON ONE SIDE AND NOW A HVAC COMPANY ON THE OTHER SIDE. THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET, UNIMPROVED FIELD. AND NOW AN HVAC COMPANY.

I WOULD STOP AT THIS PICTURE. THIS WOULD BE THE ENTRANCE OF THAT SUBDIVISION. NOW USED AS A DRIVEWAY ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY AND I'M SURE THEY HAVE EASEMENT AGREEMENT.

THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE IMPROVED TO A ROAD STANDARD FOR THAT SUBDIVISION. AND THE APPLICANT WORK OUT WITH THIS TENANT AND RELOCATE PARKING SPACES WHERE YOU SEE THAT RED PICK-UP TRUCK. WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THOSE PARKING SPACES TO THE CITY STREET NETWORK.

I'M SURE THEY CAN WORK THAT OUT OR WOULDN'T BE APPLYING.

WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM UPGRADES WOULD BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT RECEIVED THAT SCHOOL SYSTEM CAPACITIES. HISTORIC ESTIMATES 128 UNITS, 345 POPULATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE ZONING REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM R4 TO R2 WILL REDUCE THE TRAFFIC FOR THIS TRACT AND NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THIS REQUEST. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS

APPROVED. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

COUNCILLADY SMITH. >> OPPOSITION FROM RESIDENTS?

WE DIDN'T HAVE OPPOSITION. >> ANY OTHERS?

ORDINANCE 17, ITEM 9. >> PLANNING CASE Z-20 --

[01:20:05]

TWO ON ONE SIDE AND ONE ON THE OTHER.

THEY WORKED THROUGH THE ACCESS APPEALS BOARD THIS WEEK AND GRANTED THE THREE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS.

THEY HAD ENOUGH FRONTAGE FOR TW DRIVEWAYS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOMES IN THE AREA IT'S CONSISTENT WITH DRIVEWAYS WITH OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

CITY WARD 4. AND TO PROVIDE HOMES USING INFILL DEVELOPMENT. AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR LIBERTY AND NEW PROVIDENCE AND NORTH WEST HIGH SCHOOL CONCERNS OF CAPACITY FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

THIS IS AS YOU ARE GOING TOWARDS FORT CAMPBELL, LAFAYETTE BOULEVARD. THE PROPERTY IS ON THE LEFT AND THE CURRENT ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE WHERE THAT MAILBOX IS.

YOU SEE TWO HOMES TO THE LEFT AND ONE TO THE RIGHT I BELIEVE HOW THEY HAVE IT LAID OUT. THIS IS LOOKING BACK UP THE PROPERTY. YOU SEE HOW LONG THE PROPERTY IS EAST-TO-WEST. HERE YOU HAVE ACROSS THE STREET.

VIEW ACROSS THE STREET, AT THE SIDE STREET, THAT IS LILLY BELL LANE AND THE CORNER OF LILLY BELL LANE, OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION.

WITH A TREE LINE SEPARATING WITH THAT.

THIS IS IN LAFAYETTE PLANNING AREA.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AND R6 IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND USES. AND SUPPORTING WITH MASS TRANSIT AND RETAIL. SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTS ISSUES AND PLANNING

COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> COUNCIL ALLEN YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> WHAT IS THE HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY? LIKE PRIOR ZONING, I DON'T HAVE HISTORY, IT'S R1 AND EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IS R1.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE I REMEMBER US TALKING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY

BEFORE. >> NOT IN MY TIME.

>> [INAUDIBLE] OF COURSE YOUR TIME IS SHORT.

>> WE'RE GETTING THERE. >> I WONDERED IF IT WAS AN ISSUE CHANGE SOMETHING UP. THAT'S ONE OF THOSE HOUSES IT'S OLD SCHOOL AND YOU HAVE ONE HOUSE AND A WHOLE LOT OF

PROPERTY. >> IF THERE IS ON THE STAFF REPORT, ON THE FIRST PAGE YOU ALSO SEE IF A PRIOR CASE AND PUT THE CASE NUMBER AND IF APPROVED OR DENIED.

I DON'T HAVE ONE ON THIS SITE, MY GUESS IT'S R1 FOR A LONG

TIME. >> THANK YOU SIR, COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. BACK UP SOME SLIDES PLEASE AND

I'LL TELL YOU WHEN TO STOP. >> THIS ONE?

>> NO, KEEP GOING BACK -- KEEP GOING BACK, RIGHT THERE -- NO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE. RIGHT THERE.

I WANT EVERYBODY TO TAKE NOTICE OF THIS VIEW.

NOW LAFAYETTE ROAD, YOU CAN CALL A SIDE ROAD OR FEEDER ROAD, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. GO OUT THERE 4:30, 5 O'CLOCK.

THIS HAS BECOME A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TO FORT CAMPBELL.

ANOTHER THING THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME, YOU ARE RIGHT, I SIT ON THE ACCESS APPEAL BOARD. AND I THINK THAT WE PUT THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE. THEY GO TO THE ACCESS APPEAL BOARD TO FIND OUT TO GET A DRIVEWAY AND NOW IN HERE TODAY WANTING TO KNOW IF WE REZONE IT TO MATCH WHAT THEY WANTED.

FOLKS THIS RIGHT ROAD HERE -- WE WILL REQUIRE THEM TO PUT SIDEWALKS. I DON'T KNOW HOW WIDE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS AND 200 WIDE AND 200 FEET OF SIDEWALKS AND NOW

[01:25:05]

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. BUT WHEN YOU START BOMBARDING AN AREA THERE IS ALREADY APARTMENT COMPLEXES ALL UP AND DOWN HERE AND I WILL BE HONEST, BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY I KNOW TO BE.

WE HAVE AN INVESTOR THAT HAS BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN REMEMBERS IT BEING R1 FOREVER AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN R1 HOUSES AROUND THERE, WE DON'T WANT THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN A BUNCH OF APARTMENTS.

THIS ROADWAY, THIS SUBDIVISION, THESE SIDE ROADS CAN'T HANDLE

THIS. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST FAR REACHED REQUESTS THAT I HAVE SEEN IN MY ALMOST FOUR YEARS SITTING ON THIS BOARD.

OR SITTING ON THIS COUNCIL. YOU KNOW -- LIKE I SAID, JUST LOOK AT THIS PICTURE. AND YOU ALREADY SEE HOW DENSELY POPULATED THAT THIS IS. THANK YOU.

AND OH, REAL QUICK MAYOR. I DID HAVE EYE SURGERY THIS MORNING AND MY EYE IS THROBBING AND AS SOON AS WE GET THROUGH WITH THIS SECTION I WILL LEAVE AND A FULL REPORT ON MY

COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK. >> SO NOTED.

GET BETTER SOON. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ZONING ORDINANCE.

HEARING NONE, PROCEED MR. TYNDALL NOW READY FOR RESOLUTION

12. >> THANK YOU MAYOR.

THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT I ENTERED WITH BOTH THE CITY AND COUNTY, A JOINT RESOLUTION AT BOTH BODIES.

THE COUNTY IS HEARING ON MONDAY. BACK IN THE 90S AND RESOLUTION 25, 92, 93 MODIFIED THAT. AND THE COUNTY PASSED RESOLUTION -- SORRY, DIFFERENT SLIDE. WHAT THIS DID WAS ESTABLISH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.

THIS IS A TIME THAT GROWTH IS FAST IN THE 90S LIKE IT IS TODAY. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS AS PREPARED FOR THAT GROWTH. AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ITS OWN AND THE SUBDIVISION RIGHTS CHANGED QUICKLY.

AND STILL NOT REQUIRING SIDEWALKS IN THE SUBDIVISIONS AT THAT TIME. THIS IS A GROUP THAT MET TO DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THE CITY ORDINANCE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE COUNTY.

THEY REQUIRED THIS GROUP TO MEET MONTHLY PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT HAS NOT MET SINCE 2014.

I PROPOSE THAT WE REPEAL RESOLUTION 60-1992-93, AND REPLACE WITH THE PURPOSE AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE A COMMISSION, AND NO VOTE AND I AM REQUESTING THAT IT BE CALLED LAND BOARD REGULATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND TO MEET ON TEXT AMENDMENTS LIKE WE DID WITH THE MOBILE HOME PARKS.

AND ALLOW US THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZENS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD THAT WOULD BE JOINTLY CHOSEN BY THE MAYOR. AND THESE ARE TWO YEAR TERMS WITHOUT SUCCESSION. THAT WAS A REQUEST BY MAYOR DERIT. TO GET THROUGH THE GROUP AND GET EXPERIENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SEE WHAT GOES ON.

IF THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE BUSINESS FOR SIX MONTHS AND THE GROUP MEET WHAT CAN WE BRING UP. ANYTHING TO LOOK AT.

AS STAFF WE ARE ALWAYS CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT THINGS AND RIGHT NOW LOOKING AT SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND MEETING WITH KNOX COUNTY AND SEE IF IT WORKS FOR US.

THEY ARE A PRETTY OILED MACHINE AND I DON'T LIKE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL ON EASY STUFF LIKE THAT. AND I ASK YOUR SUPPORT AND NOT

[01:30:04]

AND YOU CAN SEE THE COMPOSITION BACK IN THE DAY, TWO CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD APPOINTMENTS AND TWO CITIZENS CHOSEN BY THE MAYORS. AND TWO YEARS UP TO TWO TERMS FOR FOUR YEARS AND MAYOR DURIT WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE PEOPLE IN THE ORGANIZATION AND A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE TO THE

WORLD OF PLANNING. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF RESOLUTION 12? HEARING NONE.

MR. TYNDALL IS THAT IT? >> YES.

>> OKAY, JUST IN AN HOUR AND A HALF.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> ORDINANCE 2, 2020-21, SECOND READING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF MAP TO THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF TUPENNO PARTNERSHIP FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM R1 TO R2.

ORDINANCE 3-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 24 AND ROSSVIEW ROAD FROM AG TO C4.

ORDINANCE 4-2020-21, SECOND READING, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPLICATION OF CHRIS BLACKWELL FOR THE ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY AT INTERSECTION OF EDMONSON FERRY ROAD AND EDMONDSON FERRY COURT FROM R2 TO R6.

RESOLUTION 14-2020-21, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR RETAIL LIQUOR SALES FOR BILL'S PACKAGE STORE.

RESOLUTION 15-2020-21. ADOPTION OF MINUTES JULY 2 AND

JULY 7. >> ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE.

>> MAYOR. I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER RICHMOND IS THAT YOU?

>> YES, SIR. >> ALREADY, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT ITEM 5.

SO I CAN BECOME FAMILIAR. I KNOW IT'S APPOINTMENT IS THERE A WAY TO GET INFORMATION ON PASTOR JOSE.

HOW DOES THAT WORK? >> YES, SIR, WE HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT THESE FOLKS FILL OUT AND FORWARD THAT TO

YOU. >> THANK YOU MAYOR.

[3) FINANCE COMMITTEE]

>> THANK YOU. NOW READY FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, CHAIRMAN BURKHART, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> ORDINANCE 1-2020-21, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE DISCUSSED THIS PRETTY HEAVY LAST WEEK AND PUT IT OFF TO THIS MONTH. AND I GUESS WE WILL BE VOTING ON IT NEXT THURSDAY. SO ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS.

>> COUNCILLADY STREETMAN HAS A QUESTION AND COMMENT.

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND CHAIRMAN.

AS THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED WE DISCUSSED THIS A LOT OF DETAIL LAST MONTH AND NEXT WEEK AS WELL.

AND ONE THING TO KEY IN ON IF YOU LOOK AT THE BEGINNING, SECTION 5301 -- SORRY, RIGHT ABOVE IT, I WAS CORRECT, 5301 PURPOSE. THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE TO PROVIDE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THAT'S THE REASON TO WORK ON THIS WITH THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT HEADS.

AND SINCE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING I SAT ON IN ON A WEBINAR WITH CHIEF MONT -- MONTGOMERY AND ASK HIM TO UP TO ASK QUESTIONS OF HIM IF THAT IS POSSIBLE?

>> SURE, CHIEF MONTGOMERY ARE YOU ON THE LINE?

>> YES, SIR I AM. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

CHIEF, I WANT TO START AND I KNOW THAT ONE THINGS THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT HAD TO DO WITH THE AUTHORITY FOR BOTH YOU AND BUILDING AND CODES TO BE ABLE TO GO IN AND INSPECT THEM.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ON THAT PLEASE?

[01:35:05]

CHIEF MONTGOMERY. >> YEAH, I AM GETTING A LITTLE

FEEDBACK. >> MAYOR, WE DIDN'T HEAR THE

QUESTION. >> HANG ON ONE MINUTE CHIEF, COUNCILLADY STREETMAN REPEAT THE QUESTION.

>> YES, CHIEF MONTGOMERY CAN YOU DISCUSS A LITTLE ABOUT THE AUTHORITY FOR BOTH YOU AND BUILDING AND CODES TO GO IN AND

INSPECT THE PROPERTIES? >> CHIEF MONTGOMERY.

>> I CAN SPEAK TO FIRE. BECAUSE YOU KNOW WE HAVE ADOPTED THE [INAUDIBLE] FIRE CODE. SO BASICALLY WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY OR CHANGE OF USE, THAT GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO USE A FIRE CODE TO ENSURE SAFETY.

SO YOU KNOW OUR STANCE AT CFR IS BASICALLY IN LINE WITH THE NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE STANCE OF JUST SAFETY IN THESE SITUATIONS.

>> WELL, AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING FOR DURING THIS INSPECTION?

>> YOU KNOW I KNOW THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT OCCUPANCY AND HOW WE DETERMINE OCCUPANCY. AND WE USE THE SQUARE FEET PER PERSON. SO OCCUPANCY IS ONE OF THE THINGS. I SAT IN THE SEMINAR AND I HAVE DONE A LITTLE RESEARCH IN CASE THERE WAS QUESTIONS.

AND THERE WAS CONCERNS IN THE FIRE SERVICE OF REGULATING THESE. BECAUSE THE TRANSIENT USE OF THESE ACCELERATES SOME NEGLECT. SOME POTENTIAL DANGERS.

WE HAD ALL KINDS OF CASE STUDIES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN FIRES, THERE IS COLLAPSE LIKE ON BALCONIES.

THINGS OF THAT NATURE. ENTRANCES AND EXITS BLOCKED.

WINDOWS AND ACCESS TO THESE STRUCTURES.

SO THERE'S BEEN IN THE FIRE SERVICE THAT WE NOTICED AN INCREASE IN THOSE. AND THESE KINDS OF RENTALS.

SO THE HOPE IS TO MAKE THEM SAFER FOR ASSISTANCE.

>> THANK YOU CHIEF AND THIS IS A COMBINED LAST QUESTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SAW ON THAT WEBINAR THEY TALKED ABOUT THE LIFE-SAFETY EQUIPMENT. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AND AS WELL AS WHY THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THAT THE LIFE-SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS IN THERE AND THE EFFECT ON THE HOMES AROUND THEM.

>> YES, YOU KNOW OF COURSE YOU KNOW WE ARE LOOKING AT RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND YOU KNOW MOST THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS THE HOUSES ARE PRETTY CLOSE. WE DON'T -- WE WANT TO PREVENT FIRES AS MUCH AS WE CAN. AND LOOKING AT SMOKE DETECTORS AND MAKING SURE THAT WINDOWS THAT CAN BE USED AS AN ESCAPE ROUTES CAN OPEN. WE MAY LOOK INTO THESE MULTISTORY DWELLINGS AND HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO EXIT OUT OF THOSE. YOU KNOW THERE IS A BIG ISSUE WITH DRYER VENTS. AND DRYERS CAUSING A LOT OF FIRES ESPECIALLY IN THOSE TYPES OF SETTINGS.

SO THERE'S FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, THERE IS SEVERAL THINGS WE CAN DO TO GET AHEAD OF THE HAZARDS THEY CREATE.

AND ALSO ESTABLISHING THAT GUIDELINE AND HOLDING THE OWNER ACCOUNTABLE THAT THEY ARE CHECKED ON A REGULAR BASIS.

>> AGAIN THESE THINGS ARE PROTECTIVE TO THE TRANSIENT GUESTS COMING TO OUR COMMUNITY TO STAY THERE.

AS WELL AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOSTS AND ALSO TO THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE LIVING AROUND IT WHO COULD BE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AND ALLOWING FIRE THAT COULD SPREAD TO THEIR PROPERTIES.

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHIEF

MONTGOMERY, I APPRECIATE YA. >> ANYBODY QUESTIONS OF CHIEF MONTGOMERY. SEEING NONE.

PROCEED. >> I SPENT A LOT OF TIME LAST WEEK AND LOOK OVER IT AND THE REASON WHY THIS WAS THOUGHT OF TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE TRANSIENT GUESTS COMING TO OUR COMMUNITY AND LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO STAY AS AN OVERNIGHT PLACE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A HOTEL OR MOTEL.

WE WANT TO LOOK OUT FOR EVERYONE AND ENSURE THAT OUR PUBLIC

[01:40:03]

>> THANK YOU COUNCILLADY STREETMAN.

BURKHART. >> ORDINANCE 7-2020-21, REPEALING THE ORDINANCE 152-2006-07.

THIS IS TAKING WHAT THE COUNCIL DID IN 2006 AND IT SET A BORDER AROUND THE HOSPITAL AREA AND LARGER PART OF SAINT B AND BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH THAT THEY EXPECTED WHEN THE HOSPITAL MOVED AND ALL THE NEW TAXES COLLECTED GO INTO A FUND TO WORK ON CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THAT AREA. AND I THINK IT'S TURNED INTO WHICH IS MORE OF A JOURNAL ENTRY FOR MRS. MAUDE AND HER DEPARTMENT. AND BROUGHT THIS TO US TO CLEAN HER BOOKS UP AND NOT BEING USED. AND EASIER TO COLLECT THE TAX AND PUT IN A GENERAL FUND. I THINK IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS I WILL TRY TO ANSWER OR MRS. MAUDE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT YOU HAD A QUESTION.

>> [INAUDIBLE] IT WAS PREVIOUS [INAUDIBLE].

>> OH. >> [INAUDIBLE] I WANTED GIVE EVERYBODY ADEQUATE TIME TO SEE SOME AMENDMENTS AND [INAUDIBLE] ON THE SPOT SO THEY ARE IN YOUR PACKET FOR AIRBNB.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ORDINANCE 7.

>> MAYOR. >> YES, COUNCILMEMBER RICHMOND

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> YES, I WONDERED IF YOU REPEAT

WHAT COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT SAID. >> YES, HE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE BEFORE US AND IN YOUR PACKETS NOW THAT I WANT TO COMMEND COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT TO GEM THEM TO US AND THAT WE HAVE TIME TO READ THOSE.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN BURKHART RECOGNIZED.

>> RESOLUTION 16-2020-21. THIS IS APPROVING A WAIVER FOR CITY'S SUBROGATION CLAIM RELATED TO THE DEATH BENEFIT PAID TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE THAT WAS KILLED.

I THINK THEY REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH THE TRUCKING COMPANY. AND I THINK THAT BASICALLY WHAT THE CITY IS DOING SAYING WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE OUR RIGHT TO THEIR $70,000 IF IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT AND THE WIDOW CAN KEEP THE WHOLE AMOUNT. THINK IT'S PRETTY MUCH IT IN A

SMALL PARAGRAPH. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

WELL SAID. YOU EVEN PRONOUNCED THE WORD

TOO, I AM PROUD OF YOU. >> THAT IS CONCLUSION OF MY

REPORT. >> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT RESOLUTION 16? HEARING NONE, READY FOR THE GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE, AND CHAIRLADY GUZMAN.

>> I WILL HAVE A REPORT READY NEXT WEEK, MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CHAIRMAN

ALLEN. >> REPORT ON THURSDAY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR, PARKS AND RECREATION CHAIRLADY GUZMAN.

[7) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE]

>> REPORT ON THURSDAY. >> PUBLIC SAFETY, CHAIRMAN

HENLEY. >> SORRY I AM WINDED AND UP THE STEPS, I AM AWARE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN AWARDED WITH THEIR FOURTH AWARD TODAY AS OF 3 P.M. FOR ACCREDITATION AND I WANTED TO SAY GOOD JOB.

AND ALSO THANK YOU TO OFFICER GILL FOR KIND OF SPEARHEADING THAT THING. GOOD JOB AND FULL REPORT WHEN I

CATCH MY BREATH NEXT WEEK MAYOR. >> IT WILL TAKE A WEEK?

>> HOPE NOT. >> AND TO REPEAT, THANK YOU SERGEANT GILL FOR YOUR WORK ON THE REACCREDITATION FROM CALEA AND THAT DESERVES A ROUND OF APPLAUSE.

[APPLAUSE] THANK YOU CHAIRMAN HENLEY.

[8) STREETS & GARAGE COMMITTEE]

THE RESOLUTION IS FOR T-DOT TO PREVENT TRACTOR TRAILERS TRUCKS

[01:45:05]

AND TO GET APPROVAL AND CAUSE OTHER THINGS TO HAPPEN.

WE AVERT TRUCK TRAFFIC AWAY FROM THAT DANGEROUS CORNER AND PUSH THEM TO CRAFT STREET WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO GET TO 79.

AND WHAT THIS RESOLUTION WOULD DO AND SEND TO T-DOT.

QUESTIONS ABOUT RESOLUTION 13. SEEING NONE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, CHAIRLADY SMITH RECOGNIZED.

[10) DESIGNATIONS COMMITTEE]

>> THANK YOU, WILL HAVE SOMETHING NEXT WEEK.

>> THANK YOU, RESOLUTION 17 AND DESIGNATION COMMITTEE WILL CONSIDER THE DESIGNATE WALKER STREET TO SHARONNIES HORTON.

[11) NEW BUSINESS]

SPONSORED BY CHAIRLADY SMITH, RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 8.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. THIS ORDINANCE IS IN REFERENCE TO THE CELEBRATION OF INDEPENDENCE DAY.

DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE AND JULY, THE COUNTY 9-1-1 CENTER RECEIVED CALLS FOR COMPLAINTS AND INJURIES AND FIRES TO HOME.

THE TOTAL CALLS RECEIVED TO 9-1-1 WAS 670 DURING THE CELEBRATION TIME FRAME. THE FIRST CALL WAS MAY 15 AND LAST CALL JULY 11, WHICH ALMOST DOUBLED FROM LAST YEAR CALLS THAT TOTALED 370. ON JUNE 29, A HOUSE LOCATED IN WARD 6 WAS DESTROYED BY A DRIVE-BY FIREWORKS CAR GAME, THROWING OUT OF A VEHICLE AMONG MANY NEIGHBORHOOD PERSONS THAT CAUSED CASTROPHY'S. AND TO HAVE ORDINANCE TO PREVENT DRIVE BY OF FIREWORKS AT A PERSON'S HOME PROPERTY OR VACAN'T HOME OR ANOTHER VEHICLE IS PROHIBITED.

THIS ORDINANCE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR CITY CODES TO DEFEND AGAINST THIS AND RAISES SECTION 2-18 A FIREWORKS UNLAWFUL TO EXPLODE, NO PERSON SHOULD IGNITE OR DISCHARGE ANY FIREWORKS IN ANY MOTOR VEHICLE OR IGNITE FIREWORKS FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE WITHIN A MOTOR VEHICLE -- SOUNDS DOUBLE. AND NOR ANY PERSON THROW FIREWORKS INTO OR AT A MOTOR VEHICLE OR AT ANY PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE OR BUILDING OR HOME OR FACILITY IF OCCUPIED OR NOT. AND THIS IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ALL ABOUT, TRYING TO STOP DOWN THE BURNING DOWN OF HOMES

TO PLAY WAR GAMES. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILLADY SMITH IT'S SAD THAT WE NEED THIS AND HERE IT IS.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ORDINANCE? HEARING NONE, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM RESOLUTION 18, COUNCIL ALLEN YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE

OTHER. >> I'M SORRY.

>> GO BACK TO THAT ORDINANCE 8. >> I'LL BRING IT UP NEXT WEEK.

IT'S A GOOD THING. IT'S A VERY GOOD THING.

Y'ALL RECEIVED, YOU SEE THE RESOLUTION IN YOUR PACKET.

PERTAINING TO THIS ROBINSON LAWSUIT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL LETTERS AND THERE IS A RESOLUTION.

AND WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE TIMELINE AND LOOK AT THE TIMELINE AND KNOW THE CASE AND WHAT IS GOING ON.

WE ARE CONSTANTLY, THIS IS AN ENDLESS MONEY PIT FOR US.

WE ARE SPENDING AND SPENDING AND SPENDING.

AND AS I STATED BEFORE AND I WILL STATE IT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT

[01:50:03]

THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS.

WE ARE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OVER TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS.

I KNOW WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH LAWSUITS AND LITIGATION THERE IS ALWAYS A CHANCE. ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE ROLLING THE DICE. YOU HOPE THAT THE ODDS ARE IN YOUR FAVOR, YOU ROLL THE DICE. THERE IS A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE TO SETTLE OR GO TO TRIAL. AND IN HINDSIGHT I'M SURE THERE IS NO ONE HERE OR THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD HAVE IMAGINED THAT WE WOULD BE UP TO WHERE WE ARE NOW.

IN SPENDING FOR THIS CASE. FOR SUCH A SMALL THING.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT YOU SAY WHAT DO WE HAVE? WHAT DID WE GET FOR IT? WELL, WE HAVE NOTHING.

WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY. BUT WE HAVE NOTHING.

WE HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT. COMING DOWN THE PIKE, THERE IS GUESS TO BE MORE LITIGATION. YOU ALL HAVE THE PACKET.

YOU ALL I'M SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS GOING ON AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT. THAT'S NOT EVEN COUNTING THE APPEALS ON THE OTHER LAWSUIT. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THIS TO GO ON. THE CITY CANNOT AFFORD TO ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE TO GO ON. I FEEL THAT AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT WE ARE ELECTED TO BE GOOD STEWARDS AND TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE.

I READ IN ONE OF THE DEPOSITIONS DURING THIS CASE, THAT ONE OF T THE -- OR ACTUALLY IT WAS THE COUNTY, MAYOR. HE WAS ASKED ABOUT LAWSUITS AND SAID HE REMEMBERED HE HAD A LAWSUITS, IT WAS A $40,000 LAWSUIT. THEY FELT THEY WERE RIGHT AND FELT THEY HADN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG BUT WHEN THEY SAT DOWN AND TALKED ABOUT IT. THE ATTORNEY SAID PROBABLY $150,000 TO FIGHT IT. WELL, WE'LL SETTLE IT.

WELL, THAT'S JUST A SMALL GAP. WE HAVE A BIG GAP AND THAT GAP IS GETTING LARGEER AND LARGER. CASE IN POINT.

THE JUDGE IS WAITING TO RULE ON ATTORNEY FEES, AND HE'S ASKING FOR $800,000. SINCE THE TRIAL, NOT COUNTING JUNE, WE'VE ALREADY SPENT OVER 174,000 TO ARGUE TO FIGHT OVER HIS $800,000. BY THE TIME THIS PART IS OVER, I'M SURE WE'RE BE AT THE RATE WE'RE GOING SOMEWHERE AROUND -- SOMEWHERE AROUND 400-500,000 MORE TO FIGHT 800,000.

THE DOLLARS AND CENTS IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

WE HAVE SO MANY THINGS THAT THIS CITY NEEDS.

AND FOR US TO KEEP POURING MONEY AND REALLY GETTING NOWHERE.

BECAUSE AS I STATED BEFORE, THE COURTS CAN SAY WE WON.

SOMEONE ELSE CAN SAY WE WON. BUT WHEN YOU SPENT OVER PROBABLY $1.5 MILLION, JUST TO SAY YOU WON.

DID YOU REALLY WIN? I'M ASKING TO YOU LOOK AT THIS TO THROW PERSONALITIES OUT. TO THROW THE HISTORY AWAY.

THROW IT AWAY. BECAUSE WE CAN'T CHANGE IT.

WE CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED UP TO THIS POINT.

IT'S ALREADY THERE, WE ARE WHERE WE ARE.

I'M SURE IF WE COULD ALL GO BACK AND SAY, OH, WE'LL CHANGE THAT, WE'D FIX THAT BUT WE CAN'T. WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET FURTHER IN THE HOLE AND MOVE PAST THIS.

AND COULD BE THE THIRD SET OF COUNCILMEMBERS TO DEAL WITH THIS

[01:55:02]

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COSTS AND WHAT AS FAR AS THE APPEALS ARE CONCERNED, AS FAR AS THE NEW LAWSUIT IS CONCERNED.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER TWO TO THREE YEARS.

HOW MUCH MONEY WILL WE PUT IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR JUST FOR THIS LAWSUIT? YOU CAN ABOUT IMAGINE IT HAS TO BE A WHOLE, WHOLE LOT. BECAUSE YOU HAVE APPEALS AND THEN YOU HAVE THE NEW LAWSUIT. WE -- I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THIS. THROW PEOPLE OUT THE WINDOW.

THROW PERSONALITIES OUT THE WINDOW.

LOOK AT IT FROM THE TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS PERSPECTIVE.

THAT'S WHAT IS IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT OUR MONEY WE'RE SPENDING. THIS IS TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS WE ARE SPENDING. AND TO CONTINUE TO ROLL THE DICE, OUR ODDS AREN'T GOOD. WE HAVE ROLLED THEM TWO OR THREE YEARS AND 1.5 MILLION IN THE HOLE AND CLIMBING.

THOSE ARE POOR ODDS TO ME. AND WE'RE GOING TO CONSTANTLY CONTINUE, EVEN IF BEST-CASE SCENARIO, BEST-CASE SCENARIO.

THE JUDGE HOLDS UP ALL APPEALS AND THE NEW LAWSUIT THEY DON'T GET MUCH, IT STILL WILL COST US MILLIONS AGAIN OVER AND OVER AND OVER. BESIDES WHAT WE ALREADY SPENT.

I AM ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THIS AND LET'S JUST END THIS.

LET'S END IT FOR THE CITIZENS. IT'S CUT OUR LOSSES AND THROW PERSONALITIES OUT THE WINDOW AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE TAXPAYERS. I HATE A LOT OF THINGS, A LOT THAT MY CONSTITUENTS DOING IN THE CITY AND A WHOLE LOT OF TIMES, IT WOULD BE NICE BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHEN WE SPEND THE TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SHOW FOR IT.

WE SPENT THE TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS AND HERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE FOR IT.

WE ARE TRYING TO DO RIGHT BY THE CITIZENS.

IN THIS CASE I DON'T THINK IT'S WISE FOR US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE ON. I THINK WE HAVE TO CUT OUR LOSSES AND SUCK IT UP. SOMETIMES WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AGREE OR DISAGREE, PERSONALITIES GET IN THE WAY.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT IS THE BEST THING TO DO FOR THE TAXPAYERS? AND IF YOU REALLY SEARCH YOUR HEART AND THROW ALL THE HISTORY OUT OF THE WINDOW.

AND ASK YOURSELF, IS CONTINUING TO FIGHT THIS BECAUSE IT'S LIKE A BLANK CHECK. LIKE YOU GET A BLANK CHECK, FIGHT NO MATTER WHAT. AND GOD FORBID WE LOSE ONE OF THE APPEALS. OR THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT.

IF WE WERE TO LOSE, JUST THINK HOW MUCH MORE MONIES WE WOULD BE OUT OF. I THINK WE -- WE CAN DO BETTER.

WE SHOULD JUST MOVE ON AND I ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT THIS.

LOOK AT THIS AND I HOPING MAYBE SOME OF YOU HAVE TALKED TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. AND IF YOU EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO THEM. EVERYBODY I TALK TO SAYS, YOU HAVE TO CUT YOUR LOSSES. IT'S TIME -- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO KEEP SPENDING ON THIS LAWSUIT, IN ORDER TO SAY WE WON. WE CAN'T WIN.

CONTINUING ON WITH THIS LAWSUIT, THERE IS NO WAY THE CITY CAN WIN. SURE A JUDGE MAY SAY YES, YOU WON, BUT WHEN WE HAVE TO GO PAY THE BILL WE LOST AND LOST MAJOR.

I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER YOUR HEART AND PUT AN END TO THIS LAWSUIT.

>> MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION. >> COUNCILLADY SMITH YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU.

TO SETTLE THIS CASE AND NOT GO ANY FURTHER, WITH MORE LAWSUITS.

HOW MUCH IS MR. ROBINSON REQUIRING FROM THE CITY TO PAY HIM? TO STOP EVERYTHING, NO MORE COURT COSTS NO MORE ANYTHING, WITH SETTLEMENT, HOW MUCH IS HE

[02:00:06]

ASKING FOR? >> COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN'S RESOLUTION HAS 1.2 MILLION IN IT.

>> OKAY, I DON'T SEE IT ON THE AGENDA.

>> UNDER NEW BUSINESS, RESOLUTION 18.

>> YEAH, IT'S NOT ON MINE, MAYOR.

>> OKAY, I DO APOLOGIZE, YOU WILL SEE IT IN YOUR PACKET.

>> OKAY, 1.2 MILLION AND THE LAND WAS FOUR FOOT EASEMENT WE

ARE FIGHTING ABOUT? >> IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS THAT,

BUT MORE COMPLICATE THAN THAT. >> BUT THE MAIN PROBLEM WAS FOUR

FOOT EASEMENT? >> THE MAIN PROBLEM HAS A PORTION OF SEWER PIPE ON HIS PROPERTY AND A GREASE TRAP ON OUR PROPERTY AND THE LIST AS LONG AS A NICKEL SHOE STRING.

>> AND TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THE FOUR FEET EASEMENT?

>> THAT'S BEEN THE TALK. >> OKAY, THANKS I APPRECIATE IT.

AND THANKS FOR THE UPDATE. >> YOU ARE VERY WELCOME, ANYONE WITH A QUESTION ABOUT RESOLUTION 18.

SE SEEING NONE.

WE ARE READY FOR MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER COMMONS.

HEARING NONE. PUBLIC COMMENTS.

MADAM CLERK DID WE HAVE ANYONE REGISTERED.

NO ONE TO SPEAK, SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER BURKHART.

[4) GAS & WATER COMMITTEE]

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE.

WE MISSED ORDINANCE 6 AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT IT, COUNCILLADY'S GUZMAN COMMITTEE BUT IT'S THE WOODLAWN

EXTENSION. >> YES, CHAIRLADY GUZMAN YOU

WANT TO MENTION. >> DO WE HAVE MR. RIGGINS, DID YOU WANT TO TALK ON THAT ORDINANCE?

>> MR. RIGGINS ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE?

>> I'M HERE. >> GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN TO US

ORDINANCE 6. >> YES, SIR, IT'S A RUN OF YOUR MILL UTILITY EXTENSION. OUT AT LIBERTY PARK SUBDIVISION AS YOU WELL KNOW YOU APPROVED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN US AND WOODLAWN UTILITY DISTRICT. THIS DOES SAY FOR WATER AND SEWER AND THAT'S FOR THE TIME BEING TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE PROMISED NOT TO HOLD UP DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

YOU WILL APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER AND THEY WILL TURN THE PLANS IN. AND WHEN IT'S SAID AND DONE BETWEEN US AND WOODLAWN. WOODLAWN WILL OWN THE WATER EXTENSION AND WE OWN THE SEWER. EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT IS THE SAME UTILITY EXTENSION YOU HAVE APPROVED.

>> THANK YOU MR. RIGGINS. ANY QUESTIONS OF THAT ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN BURKHART FOR CATCHING.

WE ARE READY TO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.