[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