Clarksville, TN – On October 2nd, Mr. David Smith presented the update for the 2020+ plan. I held several town halls and received input from several residents. We were not able to present our ideas; we turned them in, and the streets department will review them.
A few takeaways from the meeting were that the Trenton Road is not expected to be completed prior to 2030. We are relying on state funding. I have concerns regarding the timing based on the completion of Spring Creek, which I will address in the first zoning below.
There were a few concerns brought up by residents that were addressed in the meeting:
- The Meriwether and Northeast sidewalks are illustrated on pages 52 and 53 of the slides.
- I have continued to follow the upgrades to Old Russellville Pike; on page 38 of the slides, they indicated that the light has been funded and is in line to completion.
Link to Transportation Plan 2020+ Presentation
Link to Agenda and Video of the City Council – Special Work Session
LINK TO Agenda and Meeting Video, City Council – Oct 5, 2023
Planning Commission – Zoning Ordinance
| AG Agricultural District C-2 General Commercial District C-5: Highway & Arterial Commercial District M-3 Planned Industrial District O-1 Office District |
R-1 Single Family Residential District R-2 Single Family Residential District R-3 Three Family Residential District R-4 Multiple Family Residential District R-6 Single Family Residential District |
A. Passed I voted NO ORD 29-2023-24 [Zoning Case #Z-50-2023] located on a tract of land south of the eastern terminus of Eagles Nest Lane, east of Viewmont Drive & west of Heatherwood Trace from AG to MXU-PUD
APPLICANT REASON: Black Oaks proposed a mixed-use town center.
WARD: 12 NUMBER OF ACRES: 83.59 +/- Lots/Units Population
I voted no because the dates for the completion of the Spring Creek Parkway and the Trenton Road widening project (state-funded) are not compatible. The special session stated that Phase One of the Spring Creek Parkway would be completed by the winter of 2024, and Phase 2 would be completed by 2026. The city council has not funded Phase 2. Trenton Road is a state project, and it is my understanding that we have not acquired the right of way for the project, and at best, the completion date is 2030.
There is also a risk to the developer as well. With the clause they signed, if there is a change in administration, they could slow down the Spring Creek Project to coincide with the widening of Trenton Road, and this would impact the PUD completion date.
B. Passed I voted Yes ORD 30-2023-24 [Zoning Case #Z-51-2023] A parcel fronting on the north frontage of E St., 215 +/- feet east of the Beech St. & E St. intersection. from R-3 to R-4
APPLICANT REASON: Extend the current zoning for a multi-family development.
CITY COUNCIL WARD: 4 ACRES: 0.57 Lots/Units: 6 Population: 16
Comments from Street Department: Dedicate 7.5 feet of ROW for future widening and sidewalks on E. Street.
I initially had concerns that the language did not require sidewalks but the presentation for the Transportation 2020+ Plan indicated that the sidewalk is funded under the sidewalks to schools’ projects.
C. Passed I voted Yes ORD 31-2023-24 [Zoning Case #Z-52-2023] A parcel of land fronting on the east frontage of old Russellville Pike, 300 +/- feet south of the Old Russellville Pike & Honeycomb Ct. intersection from R-1 to C-2
APPLICANT REASON: Property has existed as a church with 7,500 sf commercial building since 1993 in an R-1 conforming use zoning. The owner wishes to sell the property and the buyer wants to convert the current structure into a neighborhood medical/clinic office. Developer states will reuse the current structure.
WARD: 11 ACRES: 3.67 +/- Lots/Units: 44 Population 118
D. Passed I voted Yes ORD 32-2023-24 [Zoning Case #Z-53-2023] : A parcel located at the northwest corner of the Tylertown Rd. & Winterset Dr. intersection. From R-5 to C-1
WARD: 12 ACRES: 2.0 +/-
APPLICANT REASON: In addition to church activities, the property will be used to service/provide childcare for residents within convenient traveling distance.
E. Passed-I voted NO ORD 33-2023-24 [Zoning Case #Z-54-2023] A parcel located at the northeast corner of Lafayette Rd. & Evans Rd. R-1 to R-4 Multiple Family Residential District
WARD: 2 NUMBER OF ACRES: 0.58 Lots/Units: 7 Population: 18
APPLICANT REASON FOR REQUEST: Extension of existing R-4 zoning. It will provide a small multi-family development on a corner lot. It has a neighboring school complex with existing crosswalk connectivity. It is existing sidewalks and public transportation to support future residents on a 5-lane corridor. I voted no because the only entrance would be from Evans Road.
F. Passed-I voted Yes ORD 34-2023-24 [Zoning Case #Z-55-2023] : Located at the southwest corner of Innovation Way & Eubank Dr. M-2 to M-1
Ward 4 ACRES: 1.43
APPLICANT REASON: To subdivide and build a warehouse. Setbacks in M-2 zoning make the site impractical.
Consent Agenda
Items in this portion of the agenda are routine and non-controversial by the Council and may be approved by one motion; however, a member of the Council may request that an item be removed for separate consideration under the appropriate committee report. Please see the previous newsletter for my votes and additional information. I will only include items that have changed, or I have new information to add.
No information to report.
New Business
A. Passed I voted Yes – ORD 27-2023-24 (First Reading) An Ordinance amending the Operating and Capital Budgets for Fiscal Year 2024 for Governmental Funds (Ordinance 140- 2022-23) to amend capital project names
B. Failed I voted NO – Mary Seay and Ronald Seay v City of Clarksville and Mart Fendley Laws Settelement demand.
Karen’s Corner
This is my second time updating all of you in this way. As a reminder, I am sharing things I am currently working on.
I met with several residents in our community who would like to update and strengthen our ordinances that cover our historical districts and community overlays. We have created a list of our concerns and will present them to the Director of the Regional Planning Commission for his guidance.
I attended the CMCSS Power Breakfast, as a graduate of the CMCSS Leadership, I am grateful for all the wonderful things our schools are doing to support our students and community.
I am a member of the Tree Board, and we created a subcommittee on the Tree Board Bylaws, which will be voted on this week at our meeting.
Our Healthy Yards initiative gave out free plants and seeds that are native to TN at the Farmers Market this weekend. This initiative is a joint project with APSU and the County, thanks to everyone who participated.
I am getting very close to presenting my updates to the city’s sidewalk ordinance. I had to pause because there was a court case in Nashville that I was following, and the Final Rule on Public Right of Way Accessibility (PROWAG) standards was approved by the Access Board at the federal level. The new languages in the PROWAG will need to be incorporated into our ordinance. I am working on this and plan to meet with the members of the street department to review it. I addressed my concerns regarding the Roundabout at Whitfield and Needmore. We should meet the standards from this point forward.
If anyone has expertise regarding ADA or PROWAG, I would appreciate your input and review.
Language in the final rule includes:
a. Despite on-going efforts to improve access, pedestrians with disabilities throughout the United States continue to face major challenges in public rights-of-way because many sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian facilities are inaccessible. Equal access to pedestrian facilities is of particular importance because pedestrian travel is the principal means of independent transportation for many persons with disabilities.
b. Any portion of a pedestrian facility that is altered must be altered to comply with these guidelines regardless of the intended ‘‘scope of the project’’ by the entity undertaking the alteration (R201.1). This means if we don’t build it right the first time we will have to make to standards in the future.
c. This includes that compliance with the requirements is required to the maximum extent feasible where existing physical constraints make compliance with the applicable requirements technically infeasible (R202.3). In the proposed rule, added elements were treated as new construction and subject to full compliance with all applicable requirements regardless of existing physical constraints (NPRM R202.2).
