[0:06] >> good afternoon everyone, april 28, 2022, executive session of the clarksville city council.

[0:12] mr. Tyndall called and is going to be about five to ten minutes late. So we will proceed with other

[0:18] items on the agenda, waiting on his arrival. Let me introduce a couple of folks as we get started.

[0:26] stephanie jenkins, tropical cros training with lisa canfield.

[0:34] and then eric bitner is here substituting for mr. Baker who

[0:39] is still little under the weather.

[0:45] in the back, arthur bing, interim director for clarksville

[0:52] transit.

[0:58] your service. >>> because we are waiting to

[1:05] mr. Tyndall, ma'am, read the consent agenda.

[1:16] >> 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

[1:20] request that an item be removed for separate consideration under the appropriate committee report.

[1:35] ordinance 92-2021-22, second reading, amending the official code of the city of clarksville reapportioning the city of clarksville for the purpose of electing persons for

[1:39] the office of city council along state route 12 and east

[2:01] old ashland city road\. Ordinance 93-2021-22 second

[2:06] reading, authorizing the sale of property located 2015 ft.

[2:11] campbell boulevard at public auction.

[2:31] ordinance 95-2021-22, second reading, amending the operating and capital budgets for the fiscal year 2022 for governmental funds, ordinance 130-2020-21, to create and add additional funding for capital projects for

[2:35] a total of $27,460,000. 5. Ordinance 96-2021-22, second ordinance 96-2021-22, second reading, amending the zoning

[2:39] ordinance and map of the city of clarksville, application of mark

[2:46] davis, for zone change on property located at the

[2:54] intersection of kelly lane and general commercial district to r-6 single family residential district.

[2:58] ordinance 97-2021-22, second reading, amending the zoning ordinance and map of the city of clarksville, application of

[3:03] juanita charles, for zone change on property located at the intersection of plum street and e street from r-3 three family

[3:12] residential district to r-4 multiple family residential

[3:17] district. Ordinance 98-2021-22, second

[3:28] reading, amending the zoning ordinance and map of the city of clarksville, application of benny skinner, for zone change on property located at the intersection of franklin street

[3:34] and east college street from r-3 three family residential district to r-6 single family residential district.

[3:43] ordinance 99-2021-22, second reading, amending the zoning ordinance and map of the city of clarksville, application of

[3:48] samuel renison baggett, for zone change on property located at

[3:52] the intersection of edmondson ferry road and jen hollow road from r-1 single family residential district to r-2

[3:58] single family residential district.

[4:02] ordinance 100-2021-22, second reading, amending the zoning

[4:08] ordinance and map of the city of clarksville, application of john

[4:13] & james clark, landmark group, agent, for zone change on property located at the intersection of needmore road

[4:21] and east boy scout road from r-1 single family residential district to r-6 single family residential district.

[4:28] ordinance 102-2021-22, second reading, amending the zoning

[4:32] ordinance and map of the city of clarksville, application of syd & berry hedrick, for zone change on property located at the

[4:41] intersection of lafayette road and monarch lane from r-1 single

[4:48] family residential district to r-6 single family residential district. Ordinance 103-2021-22, second

[4:56] reading, amending the zoning ordinance and

[5:03] map of the city of clarksville, application of hunter winn, et

[5:10] al, for zone change on property located at the intersection of batts lane and biglen road from rm-1 single

[5:17] family mobile home residential district to r-6 single family residential district. Ordinance 106-2021-22, second

[5:25] reading, amending the zoning ordinance and map of the city of clarksville, application of ascension

[5:34] properties, for zone change on property fronting west thompkins lane from r-3 three family residential district to

[5:41] r-6 single family residential district.

[5:52] resolution 61-2021-22, a resolution approving appointments to the after hours establishment board, board of equalization, board of zoning appeals, designations committee, and the senior citizens board.

[6:04] and adoption of minutes: april 7, 2022 3) finance committee chairperson >> any member wish to speak on

[6:10] the consent m agenda. Seeing none.

[6:15] let's move on pl mr. Tyndall ist here.

[6:19] let's move on to finance committee, councilperson

[6:24] streetman. >> first reading,

[6:30] ordinance 107-2021-22, first reading authorizing the exercise of the right of eminent domain to acquire easements, property and rights of way required to facilitate construction of the

[6:34] spring creek parkway project. The finance committee did vote

[6:40] for approval. >> okay, I think mr. Cowan with

[6:45] the street department has a presentation to make to run through what we are asking you to do.

[6:58] we will have a powerpoint loaded here.

[7:02] it won't be death by powerpoint, but it will be close. The joke was funnier in my head. Mr. Cowan, please lead us

[7:11] through what you are asking. >> thank you, mayor. This ordinance is here to get permission to the city street

[7:21] department to acquire 15 properties, portions of those

[7:26] properties of easements, small amounts of right-of-way, mostly construction and slope easement from those individual prop

[7:36] properties. Spring creek parkway we have

[7:42] been looking at this for many years. We are glad this is finally getting to fruition to be able

[7:49] to go to construction. This particular project is three-mile section of roadway trenton road to wilma rudolph

[8:00] biewstled. Boulevard.

[8:10] the long-range transaction plan that the regional planning

[8:18] commission has developed was had indicated that 40,000 vehicles a

[8:22] day could be utilizing this road based on future projections. It is highly needed. Probably the biggest single

[8:30] roadway project that we have on our books right now, excited to move forward on. Next slide.

[8:38] just explain a little bit about the right-of-way acquisition

[8:43] process. So the -- some steps that we

[8:53] follow in regards to acquiring right-of-way, when we work with

[8:59] federal highway administration or tennessee department of

[9:04] transportation for federal or state funds, they require that we follow the uniform relocation assistance act from 1970 which

[9:13] outlines a very detailed process of appra appraisals and reviews.

[9:24] beyond purchasing of the land itself, but for any improvements they might have, any other damages that they might be

[9:30] ensuing as a result of the project. So we have agreed to only hire tdot certified appraisers for

[9:38] this process who are familiar with quantifying and coming up

[9:43] with a value for those improvements and damages. So it is important that we feel like, even though we don't have

[9:50] to legally follow this process, this process is important because it treats citizens fairly.

[9:55] if you are going to take land for a public project, it is

[10:00] important that they be given compensation for everything that they are being impacted by. To go on, even after that

[10:12] process has gone through and we have hired appraisers and done our negotiations, even come to consensus or agreement with the

[10:20] property owners, most houses still have a mortgage lender that has some interest in that property.

[10:25] we have to acquire release from those mortgage lenders and they

[10:32] are oftentimes not here locally. They are oftentimes part of a

[10:37] big corporate entity and it may sit on someone's desk and not be reviewed for months at a time. Our history has been, even after

[10:45] we get an approval from a property owner, we are waiting on mortgage company release. They are asking for three and

[10:50] four months to do the reviews. They are asking for sometimes three, four five thousand dollars just to even look at it.

[10:59] and so we felt like this project has been coming along for so long and we have got several properties that are being

[11:06] impacted by this, that we would need to go to the right of eminent domain in order to get this property in a reasonable

[11:13] time frame. One thing I should let you know, during that process of going through the eminent domain

[11:20] process, we take the value that our appraiser has come up with

[11:24] for the easement, for the right-of-way and we place that with the court system and it goes in and they are able to

[11:33] hold that. So we have already taken the money we think it is worth, the property is worth, and give that

[11:38] to the court system. That property owner at that time can petition to get and receive a money immediately and then we

[11:47] can continue that negotiation process so that if any more value is determined, based on negotiation or based on the

[11:55] court ruling, then they can be compensated in addition to that.

[12:00] we don't want to hold up their ability to at least get what

[12:06] they have deemed as an appropriate amount. This is a graphic that just shows some of the properties.

[12:12] again, 15 properties, 14 of them are shown on this slide as part of phase one for this project. And, again, out of the 15

[12:21] properties, eight of them we are waiting on the mortgage companies for that. Some others, the counteroffer

[12:29] that we received from property owner was ten times the value of the property. So there really wasn't a whole

[12:35] opportunity to negotiate between that, so far apart. We have had some -- we had one that the property owner just

[12:42] refuses to speak with anyone involved with the project and they are not interested in really negotiating for anything.

[12:49] they are against the project. We have one property, no. 38,

[12:53] largest one on the map, that had individual that owned the

[12:58] property, it has been passed down to actually 31 different

[13:02] heirs that currently reside from california to new york.

[13:08] getting authorization from all those people and all that would really be a long time-consuming process.

[13:17] if we go the route of eminent domain and we still continue to work for negotiation for that, what that does allow us to do is

[13:25] to gain possession so that we can go ahead and build the project while we continue to work out those details.

[13:32] so that's pretty much the benefit for the city in that

[13:37] regard. One more property here on phase two of the project, the property where the kohl's shopping center

[13:45] is, if you are familiar with that, very small bits of easement and right-of-way necessary right at the two

[13:51] driveway locations that are touching north edgewood.

[13:56] that's pretty much what we have. >> thank you, mr. Cowan,

[14:01] councilperson streetman, you are recognized. >> thank you, mayor, I know one of the questions I had tuesday

[14:07] was in regard to, you already have nine of the property owners

[14:11] that have agreed. Out of those nine, I believe, as

[14:16] we discussed, ten of these 15 properties, it is only easements that we are taking. Out of those nine -- out of the

[14:24] six that we have remaining, how many of those might be just easements and not an actual taking of property?

[14:30] >> I believe that five out of those --

[14:36] >> so we are still working through those. >> yes, yes. And again, those easements are

[14:42] sometimes for utilities, sometimes for connections for slope. Sometimes just for room for the

[14:47] construction to occur that's only temporary. So it is not a full taking necessarily, but in order to

[14:52] build the road, we have to take use of a little bit of land. >> thank you. >> councilperson shakeenab you

[15:04] are recognized. >> the one lot, 31, is a house

[15:10] impact by this or strictly just land? >> I believe there is a house on the property?

[15:17] >> will that be impacted. >> no, that will not. It is well into the middle of the property.

[15:22] it is just right there at the connection kennedy road is going to connect into parkway, small little corner that is being

[15:34] impacted. >> thank you. >> councilperson zacharias, you are recognized.

[15:40] >> thank you, mayor. If you could -- when you gave this presentation during the finance committee meeting you

[15:46] talked about previous ordinance that was passed by the city

[15:50] council that deals specifically with this project, and sort of

[15:55] what we are considering doing today. I know for me personally, that ordinance carries a lot of

[16:01] impact when I think of how I want to vote on this.

[16:05] I was wondering if you could just talk about that a little bit with everybody. >> so when this project began,

[16:10] it has been several years ago, before we did the engineering

[16:18] work and I began to purchase the right-of-way on this project, during when we first start a project, this is very typical

[16:25] for most capital projects, that we bring an ordinance before

[16:30] city council to allow the mayor or h his designee on behalf ofe

[16:48] city council. We have had that authority to do so. I think this particular

[16:53] ordinance -- that was a general statement that allowed us to do it for the whole project. With this order thans, we are

[16:58] defining very specific amounts. The exact square footage needed from each individual property owner and that's why it is

[17:04] before you today. Because of the specific amount for each owner. >> the only reason I asked that

[17:11] you could maybe kind of let everybody else know that, that might not aware, we have a city council where half the council

[17:19] is up -- or the public chooses half the council every two years

[17:25] and that kind of creates a situation where if the current council is just voting to undo what the previous council did,

[17:31] we can get stuck in this pattern of not moving forward and not

[17:36] making progress. I want to be very honest,

[17:42] eminent domain is a very powerful and potentially divisive issue and I think that we need to get this right.

[17:53] >> mayor: councilperson rey reynolds. >> councilperson: I was wondering, can we get a copy of

[17:58] the slides or are they online? >> yes. >> councilperson: thank you. >> mayor: councilperson allen

[18:02] you are recognized. >> councilperson: so out of the entire 15, you have some that are just easements, right?

[18:08] and then you have others that are actually acquiring land. What's the average amount of land that each person will lose?

[18:15] >> it is very small. Little slivers.

[18:19] , like the 38, that has a fairly significant amount. Most are barely touching a corner of their property.

[18:29] in their backyards they might have a fence or drainage easement in that area. But it is fairly small part for

[18:36] a good majority of these parcels. >> councilperson: so if it is a backyard and it loses a fence,

[18:41] that will be put into the money that -- they will get money for that fence or they will get -- >> correct, when we do appraise

[18:51] appraisal. That is part of the appraisal and the offer that is made. If they have an improvement,

[18:58] landscaping, trees, or a fence, that has been included in the

[19:02] offer price. >> thank you. >> mayor: koucouncilperson streetman.

[19:09] >> councilperson: thank you, mayor. It is not necessarily a question, if you will -- and I know it is a lot, if you will dig into the attachments that

[19:15] come along with the ordinance, it actually shows each and every

[19:19] individual property in there and how much you can kind of see

[19:23] that would be coming from that. It is also very detailed to show

[19:28] us whether or not it is a temporary construction easement, whether it is the slope easement, drainage easement.

[19:34] so I would encourage everybody to take time and go in there and review each of those. Then you can read before it and

[19:40] it tells you if it is fee simple, permanent ease many,men,

[19:47] slope easement or construction easement. >> mayor: thank you. Any other questions for

[19:51] ordinance 107 and mr. Cowan, seeing none.

[19:57] councilperson streetman you are recognized. >> councilperson: thank you, mayor.

[20:08] ordinance 108-2021-22, first reading authorizing the city's purchase of the sallee property with an award of entitlement community development block grant funds to the city of

[20:12] clarksville from the united states department of housing and urban development for expansion of dixon park.

[20:24] this is where we are expanding dixon park and the land we are

[20:31] getting was appraised for $20,000. That's exactly what we are purchasing the land for.

[20:36] >> mayor: any questions regarding 108, ordinance 108? Seeing nun, chairperson streetman.

[20:42] >> councilperson: that concludes my report, mayor. Mr. Tyndall, if you don't mind, come forward, and we will go

[20:51] back to the planning commission report.

[21:02] first item, ordinance 101-2021-22.

[21:11] mr. Tyndall. >> thank you, I apologize for being late. I couldn't get here in time.

[21:15] ordinance 101, mr. Ligon haon hs asked to withdraw that.

[21:22] I'm happy to any questions, but I don't have any slides on 101 this week. >> any questions for

[21:28] mr. Tyndall? Seeing none, ready for item 2,

[21:34] ordinance 93. I'm sorry, ordinance 109,

[21:39] mr. Tyndall. >> this is the application of raymond she seppard. This is .24 acres currently

[21:52] zoned r3 and requesting to go to r6. It is not an extension of the r6.

[21:58] the property fronts gracey avenue and woodland street.

[22:05] city council ward no. 6. It is a vacant lot and the owner plans to create an affordable housing option.

[22:15] this is an area near crossland avenue.

[22:19] we have a lot of r6 in the generic neighborhood scattered

[22:24] around as you can see. A lot of the smaller r3 parcels are getting grouped one or two at a time and split into just

[22:31] single family homes. The current lot could handle one

[22:35] home. This is likely be divided into two homes in the r6 zoning. Here's gracey avenue.

[22:49] similar homes on the street. Here's the vacant lot.

[22:55] and the adjacent property. And property is to your right.

[23:01] this is looking across the street.

[23:06] comments from other departments, street department noted sidewalks would be required on gracey avenue and school

[23:17] capacity comments. Historical estimates put this at two units. Staff recommends approval.

[23:22] the proposed zoning request is consistent with land use plan. The proposed r6 is not out of character with the surrounding

[23:30] developments. Adequate infrastructure serves the site and no adverse issues identified and sidewalks

[23:35] required as part of the development approval process. The planning commission also recommended approval.

[23:42] >> thank you, mr. Hi tyndall. Any questions for ordinance 109,

[23:47] seeing none, item no. 3, ordinance 110, mr. Tyndall.

[23:54] >> this is the application of frank woodard.

[24:01] we deferred that one. Apologies.

[24:06] z21-22, application of joe winn junior.

[24:13] 8.48 acres currently zoned r1a. Requesting to go to c5 in the

[24:18] front and r4 in the rear. It is an extension of the zoning classification. The property fronts tiny town

[24:27] road, 440 feet west of the tower drive intersection.

[24:31] city council ward no. 8. There's a residential home on the site and it is semi wooded and the applicant statement is,

[24:37] quote, best use of land. C5 across the street and r4

[24:45] adjacent to it. There's the home in question. A lot of you have probably driven past this many times.

[24:52] that's tower drive adjacent to it.

[24:57] looking back from the nearest cross-section or intersection across the street. Another view of the home.

[25:11] department comments and concerns, the gas and water department said it will require off site sewer upgrade.

[25:17] traffic asses assessment was sud and accepted with minimal

[25:23] impacts. The driveway must be aligned with the gas station driveway across the street and sidewalks

[25:28] along on tiny town road. No other comments or concerns

[25:33] and comments from the school system regarding capacity at the three schools listed. Historical estimates would put

[25:39] this at 72 units plus the commercial frontage. Staff recommends approval. The proposed request is

[25:45] consistent with the land use plan. C5 highway and arterial district is an appropriate zoning

[25:54] classification along tiny town road.

[25:59] in character with the development patterns of tiny town road. The plng commission also plannin

[26:07] recommended approval. >> is there a plan to connect the c5 on the back side. How are they going to get in and

[26:14] out of that property? >> right now, the adjacent

[26:19] property is still a home. I will go back to the map.

[26:25] zoned r1a. The easterly tells the picture as well. So the applicant would likely

[26:31] put a private driveway between two commercial pads back to the r4 in the rear and would I and I wouldexpect something simo

[26:42] tower drive or larger unit buildings back there. They will have a driveway that lines up with the gas station's

[26:47] driveway across the street. You can just see it in there, which splits this in half. This was deferred a month so

[26:54] they could adjust lot lines and zoning lines to match the street

[26:58] department's request there. But there's no plan to have a street that parallels tiny town road, unless they bring it in

[27:08] and want to do it. The two parcels next to them

[27:14] don't have plans. One is c5 and the other is not. Tower drive does not specifically stub into this

[27:20] property. If it did, we would probably be having a different conversation. >> I just am concerned that

[27:27] everybody gets a driveway to tinetiny town and we make it lok

[27:35] like wilma again. Not even asking to leave the space as we develop. >> it will have to meet the

[27:41] access ordinance and per the treatment department's guidelines. >> okay.

[27:48] >> mayor: let the church say amen. He was jumping out of his chair. Any other questions regarding

[27:55] this ordinance? Seeing none, ready to for item

[27:59] 4, ordinance 111. Mr. Tyndall.

[28:05] >> thtion planning commission case z22-2022.

[28:17] application of luis, alicea, kolt milam, agent, for

[28:24] the property fronts eastland drive north of the cumberland

[28:29] drive and eastland drive intersection, city council ward no. 6. Wooded tract with varying

[28:35] topography and substandard right-of-way. The applicant did not provide a statement of use.

[28:44] one little pocket of r6 a couple blocks away.

[28:48] here's the street in question. Property on this picture is up and on the right. This is looking back toward

[28:54] cumberland and not toward it. There's the property in que

[29:02] question. The house that's adjacent to that property, looking up the hill, and looking back from --

[29:09] this is from cumberland but looking back toward the pro

[29:16] property. Staff departments comments, gas and water department said there is no sewer available.

[29:22] I believe the property across the street is on septic.

[29:26] the street department said widening eastland drive along the frontage, sidewalks would be required per r6 and no other

[29:33] comments listed from other departments. Historical estimates would be 7. I think it is important to note

[29:40] if this site has sewer, you could get three or possibly four

[29:44] units under its possible zoning of r2. And staff recommends disapproval.

[29:50] the proposed request appears to be insubseq insubseq inconsiste.

[29:57] there is opportunity for r2 zoning.

[30:03] the zoning does not appear to bs substandard.

[30:08] development would require widening of the road and installation of sidewalks under acceptance of the clarksville

[30:14] street department. I will also say development under r2 may also require road widening, to be fair for this

[30:21] zoning case. Planning commission also recommends disapproval on this. >> mayor: any comment or

[30:30] question regarding ordinance 11. S111.

[30:35] seeing none. Item no. 5, ordinance 112,

[30:40] mr. Tyndall, please. >> this is planning commission

[30:46] case z23-2022, application of robert clark and todd harvey.

[30:55] this is 21.89 acres, currently zoned c3 and proposed to go to

[31:03] c5. It is an extension of the c5. Property located at the western terminus of merchants boulevard.

[31:15] it is a vacant cleared lot. The statement is need the property rezoned in order to have more variety of uses for

[31:22] the property. It does have two historical cases, both subdivisions. This has been zoned c3 well

[31:29] above 2010. The planning commission put together a document outlining the similarities and differences

[31:35] between c3 and c5. C3 is not a zone we have ever

[31:39] actually had requested. It is a regional shopping center zone. A lot of retail, office,

[31:45] commercial. But it takes out a lot of the auto oriented thens like auto repair, auto body, gas stations,

[31:53] car washes, self-storage, things like that. Really what I think is more compatible with the

[31:59] neighborhood, the cro kroger and lowe's was developed as c3

[32:05] subdivision, just to give you an idea of what c3 could be.

[32:15] c3 in the lighter blue, and c5 around it.

[32:20] there's the current end of merchants boulevard. It has a temporary turn around. We have a subdivision plat that

[32:27] does show a street going through this property. We are working with the applicant on what the future use

[32:33] of this is. Again, they stated that they wanted more uses and we are going to try to work with them

[32:38] before they submit a site plan to iron out any difficulties going forward. Here's the current end.

[32:44] the property is just beyond this tree line where it -- the border

[32:50] of this property. Here it is from 101st looking

[32:57] back. It is right over the berm there on the right side. No other comments or concerns

[33:04] from other departments. Staff recommends approval. The proposed request is consistent with the land use

[33:11] plan. The request from c3 regional shopping center district to c5 highway and arterial district

[33:16] would increase the options of additional uses, many of which

[33:20] are motor vehicle oriented. Adequate infrastructure serves the site. No adverse environmental issues

[33:26] were identified and the planning commission also recommended

[33:30] approval. >> mayor: thank you, mr. Tyndall, any question or comment ordinance 112.

[33:36] seeing none, no. 6, ordinance 113, mr. Tyndall.

[33:42] >> plng coplanning commission application of

[33:55] zone change on property located habitat for humanity, syd

[34:11] hedrick, agent, for zone change three lots with a slight slope.

[34:15] the applicant statement, the three lots are bordered on three

[34:19] sides by streets thus creating two corner lots that aren't

[34:26] large enough to build a house. A smaller middle lot and larger

[34:31] corner lot, reduce setbacks provided by r6 zoning. In other words, they only plan to do three maybe four.

[34:38] you can already do three lots on that property.

[34:43] and again request for habitat for humanity to make a wiser use of their land. And there's the property on the

[34:48] right there. Looking back up the side street

[34:55] of the property. Staff comments or concerns,

[35:00] sidewalks would be required. Street department said widen

[35:06] both dumis drive and elm hill drive.

[35:13] the capacities of the three schools listed. Historical estimates would put this at 5 units.

[35:19] staff recommends approval. The proposed request is consistent with the land use plan.

[35:23] the proposed r6 single family residential district has a more

[35:28] appropriate setback to accommodate the construction of single family homes with current corner and dead end street

[35:35] configuration. Development of this property would require widening of the streets along the frontage and

[35:41] installation of sidewalks under review of the street department. The planning commission also recommended approval.

[35:46] >> thank you, mr. Tyndall, any comment or question regarding

[35:53] ordinance 113. Seeing none. Mr. Tyndall, ordinance 114. >> case z25-2022, the

[36:00] application of jason senseney. Currently zoned c2 requesting to

[36:08] go to c5. It is an extension of the c5.

[36:13] a zoning case in 2015 is when this one piece of c5 was zoned

[36:19] that way. Parcel at the north frontage of providence boulevard and south of e street and s oak street.

[36:28] it is a vacant gravel lot used for parking. The applicant statement is to comply with what is already here

[36:34] and expand their business. There's an audio stereo site

[36:44] which is compliant with c2 on the left. The owner owns the car lot to the right and they want to

[36:50] expand into the building on the left. That's the compliant c5 lot out there right now.

[36:56] and also have some area in the back they would like to fill and level out for some vehicle storage.

[37:02] back on e street looking toward the property.

[37:07] there it is again from e street. No other comments or concerns

[37:15] from other departments. Staff recommends approval. The proposed request is subsequent with the land use

[37:20] plan. The request for c2 to c5 removes

[37:24] the ability to have mixed use residential and commercial while increasing the option for additional uses.

[37:29] many of which are associated with motor vehicle trade, adequate infrastructure serves the site.

[37:35] it appears environmental issues were identified with this request and planning commission also recommended approval.

[37:41] >> thank you, mr. Tyndall, any comment or question regarding this property in new providence? Ready for item 8, ordinance 115.

[37:51] >> planning commission case z26-2022, the application of

[37:56] code dcody and taylor dahl. R4 with the h1 overlay and

[38:05] requesting to go to op office and professional keeping the h1

[38:12] overlay. H1 overlay means it is

[38:16] historical district. H1 on the property, they comply with the madison design standards going forward.

[38:27] I believe I have a map of that. Parcel fronts madison street a

[38:36] con roy intersections. City council ward no. 6. Hehistoric overlay. The properties that front

[38:43] madison street and greenwood, most in the historic overlay.

[38:47] the property currently has an historic residential home constructed in 1924. Requests of the applicant to

[38:56] rezone the property to be able to use it as a title company and

[39:01] law office. Other houses in the area are

[39:06] allowed as offices previously in r4 but not currently. I will be happy to clarify if need.

[39:11] here's the home in question, the red brick home about midway down

[39:16] madison street. Interesting fact that we learned

[39:21] when we were going through the historic commission to review this, this home was built backwards.

[39:29] the kitchen is facing the street on this design. I don't know why they did it in 1924, interesting fact on that

[39:36] one. Looking back up the property from madison street. A lot of you have driven past

[39:44] these. This is directly across the street. This is adjacent.

[39:49] this would be the driveway in there. There are some parking spots. Half the parking spots on the

[39:55] right go with the apartments in the back. The other parking spots on the left belong to this property.

[40:02] and another adjacent home to this one.

[40:08] departments didn't have any other comments or concerns. The staff does remedies approval.

[40:13] the proposed request is inconsistent with the land use plan. The proposed office professional

[40:18] district is not out of character with the residential historic block face of the homes that exist on madison street.

[40:25] the conversion of historic homes into offices and commercial uses

[40:30] erodes the historical character of the area and permits the encroachment of uses that could diminish the historic district.

[40:38] focus on preservation and maintenance of existing structures should be required under the current zoning

[40:45] designation. It is currently r4. This entire district is r4. There was a poll taken well

[40:52] before I got here, probably going on ten years ago, asking the residents there if they wanted to go back to r1, r1a,

[41:00] good amount of these actually do have more than one unit in them. Maybe two or three units along madison street.

[41:07] the decision at the time was there was too much pushback and we didn't rezone it. All lots of record, to the 20s

[41:16] and 30s, they can you will be compliant homes. However, as we know, they could also be compliant with

[41:23] fufuturedevelopment of apartmen, converting existing structures or adding on to the density. Any of this would have to go

[41:29] through the planning commission and historic zoning commission

[41:34] on this. I'll be happy to any questions. The planning commission does recommend approval.

[41:40] >> councilperson reynolds, you are recognized. >> yes, hi. I did reach out to mr. Long who

[41:46] is the chairperson for the historical society and asked a

[41:51] question about this home. We discussed it back and forth.

[41:57] he does understand that only the front part of the property will

[42:03] be business and the backpacker back partcan be turned into apan

[42:08] r4. He said, they could do it now,

[42:12] so that doesn't matter. He indicated that obviously they

[42:17] would rather have a single family. There has been a single family for years and the home is in

[42:23] need of updating. So they support changing it to

[42:28] office rather than leaving it as a r4 and having it broken up into apartments. So I also asked one resident,

[42:37] mr. Winnn in the neighborhood, because I happen to know who he is. And it is basically the same

[42:43] opinion. The law office would maintain the integrity of the historical home.

[42:50] parking is a question. But they would rather see it

[42:54] turned into a law office than into four apartments. So to share that with you. >> mayor: councilperson

[43:02] streetman, you are recognized. >> councilperson: thank you,

[43:06] mayor. Mr. Tyndall, I was one of the ones that voted in favor. It says on here out of character

[43:13] with the residential and historic block face of homes that exist along madison street. Along madison street historic

[43:23] district corridor, don't we have several converted to commercial opportunities? They went through a painstaking

[43:30] process with the bank to maintain historical aspect of it and changed it into a commercial opportunity.

[43:37] there is an accounting office. There's a few of the homes that have already been changed into commercial opportunities,

[43:44] correct? >> that's correct. So you have the funeral home just across the street and down

[43:48] the block. That was predates a lot of other activities in this area. That has been a funeral home for

[43:56] quite a while and grandfathered use. There is a financial office five or six homes down.

[44:02] that was done between 2000 and 2010, before the zoning code got

[44:08] rewritten. It is considered by the street department a grandfathered use at the time.

[44:14] any additions to this property, whether they are structural or

[44:19] parking would have to go through the common design review board. I think we would like to lean toward parking toward the side

[44:24] or rear instead of the front. The financial office does have down the street, the whole front is parking.

[44:30] I think that's really what starts to deteriorate the community, not necessarily the use, there will be additional

[44:37] daytime traffic in and out of a law office you maybe don't have

[44:42] for a single family house if the parking could be accommodatend a way that doesn't really break up the walking nature of this

[44:49] historic zone. That's what we look for at the historical commission. Still another stop for this.

[44:56] zoning is the first step. They have to be back for the

[45:00] historical commission for site improvements. >> councilperson: I, too, spoke with a resident that lives in

[45:07] the area that is very interested in the historical impact. For them, they also, they didn't take issue with it one way or

[45:12] the another, whether it passed or failed. For me, part of my thought process is exactly what was said

[45:18] from my fellow council member, more concerned about the changes

[45:24] that would have to be made inside by converting it to apartments versus leaving it the way it was.

[45:30] so thank you. >> mayor: councilperson marquis, you are recognized. >> councilperson: thank you,

[45:36] mayor. Since staff disapproves but the commission approves, out of you'rcuriosity what was the

[45:44] difference in vote. >> the commission was unanimous.

[45:50] >> for it? >> yes. >> we heard one reasoning behind it, but were there other reasons

[45:56] why they voted for approval? >> I believe council member

[46:03] mentioned that those statements were reit reiterated by others.

[46:08] >> was it? Thank you. >> mayor: councilperson smith, you are recognized.

[46:18] >> councilperson: mr. Tyndall, I was there when we voted for this. We voted for this because I did

[46:23] state that mr. Charles tannin would love to see this being

[46:32] office space for the upkeep of the community as well.

[46:37] my question was, is this considered spot zoning.

[46:43] >> two tests I often have in my head when it comes to spot zoning, is are you doing this just for a single property that

[46:50] you are not going to do for anyone else and only for a

[46:54] specific purpose that doesn't have application anywhere else? Again, this is part of the planning staff's concern is that

[46:59] this could be just the first foot in the door of converting a lot of this over to office, medical, different practices up

[47:08] and down and not being homes anymore as they originally were. This happens in a lot of towns. Not to say that an office or two

[47:15] on a block is going to deteriorate. I don't want to see every home do it.

[47:20] so if the council is willing to apply op to other properties in the area, this just happens to be the first.

[47:26] if you are only going to do it for this property, I would call it spot zoning. >> councilperson: can you give

[47:33] me -- could you provide us a copy of information data on spot

[47:38] zoning. Could you provide a log, send that to me. I'm in favor of this.

[47:46] >> spot zoning is often litigated. There is not a hard black and white definition of spot zoning.

[47:52] you know it when you see it. I will try to write something up

[47:57] -- >> there is not a law on it? >> there is not a law that says spot zoning is illegal and this

[48:02] is what spot zoning is. It says it is illegal but it is

[48:06] a case by case bus basis gets adjudicated.

[48:14] >> send me what you have already on it. >> I will work with the legal team. >> mayor: any other comment or question?

[48:19] now ready for item no. 9, ordinance 116.

[48:24] mr. Tyndall. >> okay. Planning commission case z27-2022, southern hire teenage

[48:34] llc, jonathan ross is the agent. 1.46 acres currently zoned 01

[48:44] requesting to go to r6. Northwest corner of e street and

[48:48] oak street, around the corner from where we were. City council ward no. 4. Wooded tract that is in the

[48:53] process of being cleared and the applicant statement is to create

[48:57] affordable housing lots in clarksville.

[49:03] op zoned there many years ago with the intent to be a child care center but that didn't come to fruition.

[49:11] the entrance to burns garden on your left, e street on the right

[49:15] and the property being cleaned. Looking back from the school

[49:20] parking lot. Then looking from e street

[49:24] toward the school, you can see the equipment in there operating. This is, I believe, oak street

[49:29] looking back toward e street, property on the right.

[49:37] department comments or concerns, sidewalk would be required along the frontage per the r6 requirements.

[49:42] so no other comments or concerns.

[49:48] historical estimates could put this at 13 units. Staff recommends approval. Zoning request is consistent

[49:53] with the land use plan. Proposed r6 district is not out

[49:59] of character. Adequate infrastructure will serve the site such as mass transit and retail.

[50:06] no adverse environmental issues were identified relative to this request and installation of sidewalks will be under the

[50:12] review and acceptance of the street department. The planning commission also recommended approval.

[50:17] >> mayor: any questions regarding ordinance 116.

[50:23] councilperson smith, you are recognized.

[50:27] >> councilperson: this pertains to when you say it is not out of character, when we don't see any r6 up there, r3 and r2, r4.

[50:34] no r6. So how do you suggest that.

[50:40] >> how we justify that? Sure. If you are driving or walking through a neighborhood like this

[50:46] or an area of town, you don't know what the zoning is underneath. You look at what is now.

[50:51] homes are older and smaller. Some of our first suburbs and

[50:56] first affordable starter homes were in these neighborhoods, they are on the smaller side which r6 is our smaller houses.

[51:04] though they are taller and closer together, still single family houses and there's plenty of single family houses in the

[51:11] area. Comparable in nature. No one is building homes like you have in new providence back

[51:17] in the 30s and 40s, some are still there. This is as comparable in today's standards as we can be.

[51:24] >> councilperson: I hear what you are saying, but I'm just saying that r6 is not in character with in area.

[51:29] I know you say small homes but looking at those homes, count

[51:33] say that based on what you see. You have to look at the

[51:38] dimensions of the homes. The size of the homes.

[51:42] r6 homes are very small and we know that.

[51:48] and if you are stacking homes there, I just don't think it

[51:52] fits the character of the neighborhood because during that

[51:56] time you can have a amenities bt with r6 you cannot.

[52:02] I don't see how it fits the character. Thank you. >> mayor: councilperson allen,

[52:07] you are recognized. >> councilperson: so I know last month we were talking about the r6 homes and some people

[52:12] actually brought in some really good example of what a r6 home

[52:18] could look like. I know this area over there pretty well. When r6 home, it is not

[52:24] necessarily that you are building 900 square foot home. Some of the homes that they showed us up here were 16, 17,

[52:35] 1800 dread square feet. Big than homes in the '30s.

[52:41] it is built up versus build out? >> that's a fair assessment.

[52:47] I don't know any builder building 1100 square feet houses

[52:52] either. >> so in comparable size, they might be square foot wise bigger, it is a smaller lot.

[53:01] >> correct. >> thank you. >> mayor: any other comment or question regarding ordinance

[53:06] 116. Councilperson smith. >> councilperson: we must remember, r6 you cannot have amenities. These homes that are there now,

[53:12] you can. So we need to keep that in mind. It is not only the size of the house.

[53:16] there are a lot of other things that go along with r6 that does

[53:21] not comply with what is already there. So we have to look at the whole picture, not just what the size

[53:26] of the house is. We have to look at what does r6

[53:31] entail. We know there are, for all

[53:36] communities, there is a proper bus route.

[53:40] I mean, bus routes everywhere. In all communities, just about. We have to be concerned about

[53:50] what r6 entails, not just the size of the house.

[53:54] more to it than that. Thank you. >> marry would like to respondmo respond to that.

[54:04] next month we will be putting [inaudible] houses back into r6.

[54:13] we will be putting a pool, back in. The code department didn't see an issue with that.

[54:20] we will be bringing some other ordinances but that's going to be in the package to put that back there on the use table.

[54:27] >> mayor: councilperson smith. >> councilperson: thank you, mayor. That's good that you have listened to hear what has been said because we do need to allow

[54:34] families to have amenities, with children, family home, you

[54:41] accommodate for the children as well, not just putting in a box.

[54:46] that's just my thoughts. Not disrespecting the thing.

[54:53] make sure that we accommodating people, we are really

[54:58] accommodating them and not just building for the money.

[55:04] gentrification is taking over. We want to do the right things for the people not just because the builder wants to make money.

[55:10] thank you. >> mayor: councilperson allen. >> councilperson: everybody under the old r6, they will be

[55:15] able to build pools and playhouses.

[55:19] >> it will replace the r6. If they applied for it, they can

[55:24] come back in and get that. >> mayor: any other questions regarding ordinance 116, seeing none of t.

[55:33] we are ready for item 10, ordinance 117.

[55:40] >> application of roy miller, mark holleman is the agent.

[55:48] currently zoned r1, requesting to go to r5. This is part of the recent annexation you just saw.

[55:55] annexation does not kick in until may 3rd. However, this parcel was in the city limits.

[56:00] that's why we can act on this piece of the parcel.

[56:05] r1 to r5, not an extension. Portion of the tract is ahsland

[56:12] city road, glennstone boulevard, city council ward 7.

[56:18] on this map, the bypass is just to the northwest, just outside this picture. It is a grass field with a

[56:26] couple of tree lines. Applicant statement is to build

[56:30] owner occupied townhomes in the proposed subdivision to offer a mixture of housing types in the development.

[56:36] what he means by the subdivision, remaining portion zoned r1 which went through the annexation will be brought into

[56:44] the subdivision. The front will be townhomes. The west traditional single family homes in the rear.

[56:52] here's the property, highway 12 approaching it.

[56:56] from the county going back to the city.

[57:05] neighboring property owner on the same side of the street.

[57:12] glennstone boulevard looking back up at the property.

[57:17] department comments and concerns, there's no sewer available so it would require a sewer extension.

[57:23] traffic assess assessment was . They did consider the

[57:28] development of the 110 acres, the study was acceptable with minimal impacts. Improvements to ahsland city

[57:37] road will be required when they bring in the subdivision for the whole property. No other comments or concerns.

[57:42] the police department did ask how many exits and entrances. It looks like r5 but part of the larger subdivision.

[57:50] there will be a main public road, we will say flew the throf

[57:56] this with the townhouses bra branching off and the housing in

[58:03] the back. Historical estimates for just the r5 request would be 74 units.

[58:08] however, that doesn't take into account the loss of land for a right-of-way and easements around there.

[58:13] so potentially a little less than that. Staff recommends approval. The proposed zoning request is

[58:19] consistent with the land use plan. The proposed r5 is not out of character with the surrounding

[58:24] uses and properties. The adopted land use plan states it is encouraged to make a mixture of desired housing

[58:32] types. Adequate infrastructure will serve the site. Planning commission recommends

[58:39] approval. >> mayor: any comment or question regarding ordinance 117? Seeing none, hearing none, mr. Tyndall.

[58:44] >> I believe we are done. >> mayor: okay, thank you very much. We have been over the consent

[58:49] agenda. We have been through the finance committee. Now ready for the gas and water

[58:54] committee. Chairperson redd, you are

[59:00] recognized. >> we will have a full report next week. >> thank you.

[59:15] >> neighborhood and community, chairperson streetman.

[59:21] >> we will have a full report next thursday.

[59:25] >> and parks and recreation, chairperson holleman.

[59:31] >> I will have a full report next week. >> and department report, public safety committee.

[59:42] transportation, streets, and garage. >> yes, mayor, we will have a full report next week.

[59:51] >> mayor: new business, ordinance ordinance 118,

[1:00:12] ordinance 118-2021-22, first reading an ordinance accepting the donation of certain real property from billy mace d/b/a bill's construction company, to the city of clarksville for the purpose of a sewer pump station. >> the simple words of city

[1:00:19] property, transferred that ownership with the recording of that plat. We found out years later, that

[1:00:24] is not the case. So I can say this subdivision, this sewer station is 15 years old.

[1:00:30] so we have been maintaining it and basically using it property for 15 years and the owner has been paying taxes on this,

[1:00:38] whatever that has been. This is just a cleanup to transfer that ownership. The owner is not being taxed on

[1:00:43] that the way it should have been done 15 years ago. >> any comment or question regarding ordinance 118?

[1:00:49] thank you, mr. Rigins. We are now ready for mayor and council member comments. Members of council, you see the

[1:00:56] report on debt obligation, $42.5 million.

[1:01:01] no action is required. Let me give you the highlights. We closed on those bonds and april 20th, received $50 million

[1:01:09] bonds issued, face of the bonds 42.5 million. Premium of 7.7 premium. Our bonds will pay the investor

[1:01:19] 5% tax exempt and closing cost is a tremendous bargain for us,

[1:01:29] $231,752. That's in your ipad packet. Any other council member have a question or comment.

[1:01:35] councilperson smith? >> councilperson: thank you. I just wanted to make a comment that I got a concern from one of

[1:01:43] my c constituents on golf course lane and she was concerned about

[1:01:49] the building of the new construction, worrying about the

[1:01:53] elders and children, afraid they might be hit with all of the construction going on. So I told her -- she wanted me

[1:02:00] to make it known and I told her to make sure that the people are

[1:02:06] cautioned, pay attention to signs and cross at the crossroads at the traffic lights and to be careful out there with

[1:02:13] all the new construction going on with the new apartments and building going on around the city.

[1:02:18] I assured her there is a safely way to cross the street, use the

[1:02:23] lights and use the signals and be careful and be cautious. Thank you. >> mayor: thank you,

[1:02:28] councilperson streetman, you are recognized. >> councilperson: thank you, mayor, I would like to thank

[1:02:32] mr. Brian taylor with cde for the power breakfast he hosted

[1:02:37] yesterday. I found it very informative to learn more about our electricity department and I thank you and

[1:02:44] the employees that put an effort to host that event.

[1:02:48] I also very much enjoyed the tour of the building, thank you to your crew. >> mayor: councilperson smith,

[1:02:53] you are recognized. >> councilperson: I forgot, mayor, the st street department, the kudos to them, for making

[1:03:10] things better to live in this city. To all the staff and supervisors that are there, we thank you.

[1:03:16] >> mayor: well said. Anyone else. We are now ready for the public comment period of our city

[1:03:21] executive session of the city council, is there any member of the public that wishes to address the council at this

[1:03:26] time? Seeing none. Ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. I'm sorry. You would approach, give us your

[1:03:35] name and address. You will have five minutes, sir. >> thank you. It won't take that long. My name is chris bolen, 411 rustin lane.

[1:03:44] I came down here to see ya'll because I'm really concerned about what's happening on our street.

[1:03:53] when a new subdivision was proposed almost two christmases

[1:03:59] ago, I guess, longview with 370 homes going to be built in it, I

[1:04:06] went to the planning commission and talked to those folks. I said, they can build houses, the street department says the

[1:04:17] road okay. So we have 375 more going on. Talking about memorial drive extension.

[1:04:25] I called you mayor, left a message, never heard back. I called miss streetman, a text and message on your cell phone.

[1:04:34] never heard back from anyone. Now we hear that another person who has property over there is considering selling it for

[1:04:40] development and then we know that another person right by

[1:04:45] ridge haven is. So I don't know if any of you have gone down memorial drive extension between 4:30 and 5.

[1:04:54] 30 in the afternoon, trying to get on the connector, but it is very difficult some days and it is fixing to get 375 more cars

[1:05:02] worse than that. I don't see that we have a plan. I don't see plans. It is a very dangerous way with

[1:05:09] no shoulder. I was going to complain about the trash and miss smith, you made a point that they are

[1:05:15] picking up things. I appreciate that as a citizen. But you can't pick up much out there, you might get hit.

[1:05:22] so I think we are fixing to make a huge, huge mistake. It is almost like nobody can say no.

[1:05:29] nobody can say no. If they own the land, they want to develop subdivision, ya'll want to let them.

[1:05:35] we can't get in and out of there now. So I just would appreciate ya'll thinking of us, too, that live

[1:05:43] there and pay tax and want to have a nice home there to maybe

[1:05:49] slow down some of this stuff. At least if they want to do it, let's do the infrastructure right then.

[1:05:54] let's do it there instead of putting all the stuff in and then it is like trenton road, nowhere to go.

[1:06:01] nothing to fix, no way to do anything.

[1:06:06] I think we are better than that. I wanted to bring that to your

[1:06:10] attention and I appreciate you considering that when these next things come up and they will. >> mayor: thank you, sir, if you

[1:06:18] will hang on a minute, I will talk to you. We do have a plan and I will share it with you.

[1:06:25] any member of the public? Seeing none.

[1:06:29] we

Apr 28, 2022 Executive Meeting

Agenda

Transcript