►
From YouTube: Chattanooga City Council Agenda Session — 2-7-23
Description
Chattanooga City Council Agenda Session — 2-7-23
A
A
A
A
A
B
D
The
reason
I
had
my
light
on
was
just
to
put
a
finer
point
on
the
fact
that,
on
our
two-week
agenda,
they're
not
necessarily
an
apprentice
copy,
is
the
short-term
vacation
rental
ordinance.
It
will
be
on
first
read
next
week
so
that
everyone
has
received
a
copy
of
that
in
their
box,
and
so
we
could
have
the.
C
Two-Week
agenda
adjusted
for
the
record
so
that
the
public
knows
that
that
is
going
to
be
coming
up.
Thank
you
for
announcing
that
again,
as
we've
covered
that
and
did
to
discuss
that
again
in
strategic
planning
as
well
appreciate
you
bringing
that
back
up.
Councilman
Smith
I
saw
your
light
and
then
I'm
good,
sir
I
I
would
activate
you,
but
I.
Don't
think
you
have
a
microphone
so.
E
C
F
C
C
C
There
was
a
question
I
had
on
human
resource
item.
That
I
think
was
clarified,
that's
a
fairly
large
number
of
2.7
million
dollars,
and
that
was
that
that
wasn't
the
question
I
had
was
was
that
the
fund
or
the
bucket
that
was
used
to
pay
out
and
the
fees
associated
with
managing
that
bucket
and
the
answer
I
believe
is
someone
can
confirm
that
Julia?
Are
you
coming
I'll?
Let
you
answer
that,
but
I
think
the
answer
was
yes
correct.
Okay,.
C
C
H
I
County
area
quite
a
bit
about
this
from
Dan
over
the
past
few
months,
Consultants
have
been
selected.
We
have
a
draft
contract
for
the
County
area
plans
and
are
ready
to
move
forward.
The
funding
is
approved.
That's
for
this
revolution,
the
consultant
for
the
County
area
advance
for
the
resolution.
516.
I
I
Some
final
questions
that
consultant
but
hope
to
be
ready
for
us
to
move
forward
on
that
scene.
There
isn't
a
drug
contract,
but
the
post
contract
amount
is
going
to
be
for
the
city
area
plans,
1
million
119,
000
plus
contingency,
so
that
is
a
few
weeks
behind
so
again.
Moving
forward
on
the
county,
which
is
on
your
agenda,
fifteen
thousand,
hopefully
a
week
or
two,
the
city
area
planning
process
would
pop
up
and
that'll
be
proposed
to
be
a
hundred
one
million
and
19
000.
both
of
these
funds.
I
Fundamentally,
these
planning
efforts
are
coming
from
the
RPA
Reserve
guide
and
I.
Try
to
make
that
clear
on
the
resolution
form,
but
if
it's
not
clear
enough
I'm
happy
to
clarify
that
the
rpa's
interlocal
agreement
discusses
what
should
be
happening
with
the
rpa's
reserve
fund
and
I'll
just
mention
it
states
that
Reserve
funds
will
be
used
to
finance
consultant
costs
or
other
service
costs
related
to
necessary
needed
planning
projects,
as
determined
by
the
executive
committee.
I
I
I
I
C
I
The
regional
commanding
Agency
for
the
interlocal
agreement
that
is
stated
also
and
for
the
current
interlocal
agreement,
which
is
FY
23-27
County,
will
fund
RPA
at
847
thousand
four
hundred
six
dollars
increasing
no
more
than
two
percent
each
fiscal
year
and
every
year
that
we've
had
an
interlocal
agreement
in
place.
The
county
has
funded.
We
get
a
monthly
check
from
the
county.
D
F
F
The
provision
said
in
that
document
that,
if
it
ever
I
guess
ceased
to
be
an
organization
under
state
law,
then
that
property
could
go
back
to
the
city
or
county
based
upon
the
items
and
the
amounts
that
were
owed
on
that
property
at
that
time.
The
issue
here
at
this
point
in
time,
Erlanger
health
is
no
longer
going
to
be
Chattanooga.
Hamilton,
County,
Hospital
Authority
is
no
longer
a
governmental
entity.
C
Seeing
none,
we
have
no
Department
reports
this
afternoon
we
will
have
two
committees,
parks
and
public
works
and
planning,
and
zoning
and
I
believe
chairman,
oh
you're,
here
very
good
good
to
see
you,
sir
chairman
Hester,
are
you
ready
for
well
Fox
and
Public?
Works
is
on
our
agenda
next.
So,
if
you're
ready
all
right.
L
L
L
J
D,
please,
a
resolution
authorizing
the
administrator
for
the
Department
of
Public
Works
to
approve
change
order.
Number
one
with
integrated
Properties
LLC
of
Chattanooga
Tennessee
for
contract
number
c17017201
would
recycle
new
facility
to
reconcile
the
current
contract
with
a
revised
pricing
for
holding
price
for
additional
time,
conduit
and
cabling
for
temporary
scale
quantity
overrun
for
demolition
of
concrete
and
asphalt
floor,
leveling
of
existing
flooring
and
other
plan
changes
to
increase
by
one
hundred
thirty
two
thousand
seven
hundred
fifty
Seven
dollars
and
fifty
nine
cents
for
a
revised
amount
of
one
million
790.
J
For
the
on-call
blanket
contract
for
on-call
design
and
plan
Production
Services
contract
number
s2004100,
with
the
following
firms:
W.K
Dixon
volcourt,
barge
design,
S
and
M
E
R
K
and
K
geocentec
CTI
Kroy,
chazen,
Brown
and
Caldwell
arcadis
that
each
consultant
qualified
for
the
renewal
of
the
five
one-year
blanket
contracts
for
Professional
Services,
estimated
at
one
million.
Fifty
thousand
dollars
total
annually
for
all
11
professional
firms
for
use
by
all
departments.
L
D
Okay,
I
called
to
order.
The
planning
and
zoning
committee
may
I
get
a
motion
on
the
minutes.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
everybody
in
your
packet.
You
have
our
Planning
and
Zoning
rundown.
That
has
the
highlights
of
the
items
that
we
plan
to
discuss
today,
other
than
the
highlighted
items.
Are
there
any
cases
on
this
rundown
that
you
would
like
to
see
a
presentation
for
I'm
going
to
scan
all
right,
Vice,
chair,
dotley.
D
D
2022-0199
is
a
case
that
was
deferred
in
District
six
by
councilwoman
Burrs
back
in
December,
and
it
was
to
be
deferred
until
February,
but
it
has
not
appeared
on
the
agenda
again.
I,
don't
think
that
council
members
actually
has
all
the
information
that
she
needs
yet
to
proceed
with
that
case.
So
if
that's
something
that
you
could
Circle
back
with
the
applicant
make
sure
that
that
she
gets
what
she
needs
a
will.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
are
you
good
all
right,
terrific,
so
Karen?
D
That
up
I
would
like
to
point
out
for
everyone
that,
in
addition
to
having
the
standard
zoning
cases
that
we're
going
to
be
considering,
Karen
also
is
going
to
be
talking
us
through
two
ordinance
changes
that
we
are
going
to
be
considering.
We
have
discussed
them
already
in
strategic
planning,
so
you'll
be
familiar
with
them,
but
we'll
shine
a
light
on
them.
Councilman
coonron,
I'm,.
I
I
The
last
slide
you
saw
showed
that
case
2023-003
on
Chambers
Road
was
withdrawn.
This
is
just
if
someone's
tracking
a
case
to
understand
it
was
recommended
for
denial.
Planning
Commission
and
the
applicant
would
Drew
the
case
three
days
after
the
Planning
Commission
meeting.
So
it
was
never
never
appeared
on
a
council
agenda,
but
just
to
note
that
that
activity
happened.
So
we
do
have
10
zoning
cases.
Three
have
opposition.
One
comes
with
the
recommendation
from
Planning
Commission
to
nanai
the
two
ordinance
amendments.
I
Both
of
these
were
discussed
at
strategic
planning
once
the
hotel
motel
conversion,
one
is
the
bringing
duplexes
back
into
Conformity
and
then
a
planned
unit
development
which
also
had
opposition
I'll
start
with
the
next
cases.
On
the
first
case,
discusses
6D
20230016
on
Jenkins
Road.
Could
we
could.
I
I
I
I
think
I
just
need
to
be
more
firm,
so
the
property
is
on
Jenkins.
Just
north
of
Shallowford,
Road
and
immediate
Jason,
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site
is
a
townhouse
development
and
rezoning
of
this
property.
Would
it
be
an
exemption
extension
of
the
existing
rtz
Zone
on
the
western
side
of
Jenkins,
so
the
property
at
Brown
surrounding
the
site?
The
sites
in
red
is
the
rtz
zone,
so
this
would
be
an
extension
of
that
existing
Zone,
the
surrounding
land
use
a
single-family
residential
development
and
town
homes.
I
So
there
was
opposition
president
Planning
Commission
in
most
of
the
comments
were
for
the
Neighbors
from
Legacy
Park
Court,
which
is
the
development
to
the
south
of
the
site,
but
both
staff
and
Planning
Commission
found
that
the
request
is
compatible
with
adjacent
land
uses
and
development
form
is
an
extension
of
the
rtz
zone.
So
it
comes
with
a
recommendation
to
approve
subject
to
one
curb
cut
along
Jenkins
and
a
maximum
of
four
units
per
masked
building,
and
that
is
just
to
help
with
the
compatibility
in
that
area.
D
I
I
You
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
still
working
or
someone
is
moving.
So
it's
the
so
2109
Ralston
Street
is
a
request
resent
from
R1
to
rtz
residential
townhouse
zero
lot
line
Zone
to
divert
develop.
Urban
infill
housing
with
four
units
in
this
case
had
no
opposition
at
Planning
Commission,
but
it
does
come
with
a
Planning
Commission
recommendation
to
deny
so
I'm
going
to
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail.
I
The
site
was
part
of
a
rezoning
study
and
the
orchard
knob
Churchville
neighborhoods
that
was
rezoned
from
R3
to
R1
many
years
ago,
and
the
light
yellow
on
the
map
is
the
R1
zone.
So
you
see
the
area
in
all
the
surrounding
property
of
zoned
R1
development
form
along
Ralston
streets
includes
historic
lots
of
record
with
single
family
detached
dwellings,
and
just
to
note
that
Ralston
Street
does
not
support
on-street
parking
due
to
its
Street
width,
but
the
Narrow
Street
width
and
narrow,
right-of-way
width
side
is
immediately
surrounded
by
a
single
family
detached
residential
uses.
I
And
the
area
3
historic
River
to
Ridge
plan
adopted
in
2020,
recommends
Urban
residential
single-family,
Place
type
for
the
site
and
that's
an
overlay
in
the
plan.
We
don't
speak
about
it
too
often
because
there's
not
very
prevalent
in
the
plan,
but
this
is
an
overlay
which
describes
the
primary
use
being
single-family
detached
dwelling.
So
much
of
the
area.
3
plan
really
discusses
a
mix
of
residential
housing
types,
but
we
did
have
some
neighborhoods
that
weren't
quite
ready
to
introduce
different
housing
types.
So
the
overlay
shows
those
areas
where
it's
intended
to
maintain
single-family
form.
I
So
the
staff
recommendation
was
to
deny,
because
of
the
overlay
and
no
to
staff
noted
the
parcel
is
made
up
of
two
lots
of
record,
which
would
allow
for
development
of
a
single-family
dwelling
and
Adu
on
each
lot,
and
the
development
form
would
meet
their
three
plan
goals
and
allow
for
those
four
units
which
which
the
applicants
are
questing.
So
essentially,
staff
is
saying:
four
units
could
be
developed
with
single
family
home
in
an
Adu.
M
Yes,
thank
you.
Miss
Madam,
chair,
I
did
I
spoke
with
the
residents
in
Churchville
area
and
they
were
in
favor
of
if
it
was
going
to
be
a
single-family
home
or
two
single-family
dwellings,
but
they
were
wanting
to
make
it
to
make
it
two-story,
I
think
for
town
homes,
and
they
said
no,
which
it
was
not
going
to
work
there
well
anyway.
So
in
turn,
I
spoke
with
the
developer
as
well,
and
he
has
said
to
me
he's
going
to
withdraw.
D
I
Next
case
is
case
2023-0013
at
1913
and
1915
South
Kelly
Street.
It's
a
request
to
rezone
from
R2
residential
Zone
and
C5
neighborhood
commercial
Zone
to
ugc
the
proposals
to
develop
26
unit
apartment
building
the
case
had
opposition
at
Planning,
Commission
Planning
Commission
did
encourage
the
applicant
and
the
opposition
to
meet
after
the
meeting
they
did
meet
and
I
believe
are
an
agreement
to
the
zoning
with
some
additional
conditions
and
I
will
bring
those
up
as
we
go
along.
If
and
I'm
sorry
should
I
just
say
next
slide
or
I
must
okay.
I
One
more
what
two
more
please
okay,
so
a
portion
of
the
site
was
resumed
from
R2
residential
Zone
to
see
five
commercial
Zone
in
1980,
so
the
site's
comprised
of
that
RT
residential
Zone
nc5
neighborhood
commercial
Zone,
and
that
was
a
factor
that
went
to
the
staff
recommendation.
So
26
units
proposed
on
0.31
Acres
next
slide.
Please,
the
site
is
surrounded
by
a
mix
of
uses,
including
vacant
land,
single-family
residences,
two
family
residences,
a
school
commercial
uses
and
a
warehouse
wholesaling
use
so
kind
of
a
mix
in
the
area.
I
The
existing
zoning
in
the
area
would
allow
for
varied
manufacturing,
multi-family
residential
smoke
scale
uses
and
the
there
is
a
vacant
three
Acre
Site
across
the
street
that
is
owned,
R3
and
C2.
So
there's
a
larger
site
across
South
Kelly
Street,
which
has,
although
vacant,
has
zoning
that
allows
both
that
R3,
multi-family
and
C2
convenience
commercial
use.
I
So
the
proposed
ugc
Zone
would
be
compatible
with
a
mix
of
uses
and
zones
in
the
area,
but
staff
recommended
there
should
be
conditions
related
to
use
in
height
and
ensure
compatibility
with
the
surrounding
uses,
including
the
single
family.
So
staff
found
that
the
proposal
is
compatible
with
land
uses
in
development
form.
It
does
not
meet
the
secondary
use
criteria
in
the
plan,
so
it's
not
specifically
supported
by
the
plan,
but
the
surrounding
zoning
and
uses
are
compatible
with
a
higher
density
to
development
So.
I
The
plan
is
a
factor,
but
because
of
the
the
unusual
I
guess,
unusually
large
mix
of
uses
and
zones
in
this
area.
This
was
a
factor
in
the
plan.
So
next
slide
one
more
please
the
this
is
the
site
plan
originally
proposed
I'm
showing
this
because
you'll
see
South
Kelly
Street
and
then
the
gray
is
the
driveway
to
the
site.
I
That's
accessing
off
the
alley
on
the
other
side
of
the
alley
is
the
Chattanooga
charter
school,
and
this
came
into
play
in
the
record
in
the
discussion
at
Planning,
Commission
and
you'll
see
these
in
the
proposed
conditions.
Next
slide,
so
just
to
orient
the
site
is
South.
Cali
will
be
to
the
right
of
this,
the
site,
the
alley
and
the
charter
school.
So
it's
all
kind
of
close
in
here
together
next
slide,
opposition
was
concerned
about
the
safety
of
the
school
parking
use
of
the
alley,
because
the
school
does
use
the
alley.
I
Planning
Commission
did
recommend
approval
for
residential
uses.
Only
maximum
Building
height
of
three
stories
encourage
the
applicant
and
the
school
to
continue
discussions
next
Slide,
the
applicant
Alan
Jones,
provided
some
information,
saying
they've
met
with
the
Chattanooga
Charter
School
of
Excellence
and
would
like
to
add
some
additional
conditions
next
slide.
I
So
the
additional
conditions
are
the
10
foot,
rear
setback,
no
parking
allowed
in
the
alley.
Primary
entrance
off,
Kelly
Street,
dumpster
service,
I'll
use
the
primary
interest
entrance
and
the
alley
shall
remain
free
and
clear
at
all
times,
especially
during
construction.
That
alley
was
a
big
concern
with
the
school
just
making
sure
that
what
was
going
on
and
that
kind
of
that
transition
area.
So
we
also
received
some
email
communication
from
Ted
Griffin,
the
CEO
for
the
school,
that
the
school
is
in
agreement
with
the
conditions
presented
going
forward.
I
Okay
next
case
is,
as
K
is
K
case:
2023-0018
1605
Dodds
Avenue.
We
did
have
an
opposition
email
related
to
just
supporting
single
family
development,
but
no
one
spoke
came
to
planning
commission
and
spoke
in
Greater
detail.
It's
a
request
to
rezone
to
RT
from
RT
R2
to
ugc
Urban
General
commercial,
to
bring
in
existing
quadruplex
into
compliance.
The
applicant
State,
the
restructure
is
being
repaired
and
there's
going
to
be
no
increase
in
Florida
area
next
slide
and
choose
two
more
slides.
I
Thank
you
one
more
please,
and
that's
just
to
show
the
existing
structure
that
they're
trying
to
bring
in
Conformity
I
believe
that
their
application
materials
said
they've
been
advised
by
DRP
to
seek
rezoning
the
sites
in
the
historic
River
to
Ridge
area
plan,
which
recommends
mixed-use,
Corridor
Place
type,
one
of
the
primary
uses
in
that
and
that
that
place
type
is
multi-family
residential.
The
site,
surrounded
by
a
variety
of
uses
and
the
ugc
zone
is
compatible
with
the
goals
of
the
plan
and
and
with
the
the
mix
of
development.
I
I
Good,
okay,
a
few
more
slides,
we'll
get
to
Case
C,
which
is
the
under
the
resolutions.
So
this
is
a
special
exceptions,
permit
for
a
residential
planned
unit
development
and
the
applicants
described
as
proposals
detached
micro
dwellings.
The
community
will
include
walking
trails
dog
park,
community
garden,
solar
lighting
and
solar
roofs,
and
will
be
developed
using
a
horizontal
property
regime.
I
I
So
a
proposal
is
eight
and
a
half
acres,
a
little
less
than
eight
and
a
half
acres
with
46
units,
so
the
density
number
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
five,
but
the
Pud
requirements
will
keep
the
maximum
density
at
5
dwelling
units
an
acre
next
Slide,
the
surrounding
land
uses
consist
of
single-family
residential.
The
proposed
Pudge
shows
single
family
residential
uses
and
one
of
the
benefits
of
the
puds.
I
In
this
case,
if
the
applicant
wants
to
change,
the
Pud
include
any
other
residential
type,
they'd
be
required
to
apply
for
an
amendment
to
the
Pud
next
Slide,
the
proposed
pad
shows
33.6
Acres
of
open
Green
Space
that
is
accessible
to
the
residents.
A
portion
of
the
site
contains
slope
with
an
approximately
25
to
45
percent
grade,
and
this
air
is
preserved
in
one
of
the
Open
Spaces,
and
the
open
space
is
shown
in
green
on
the
site
plan.
I
Next
slide.
The
site
is
located
within
the
Eastdale
plan,
but
the
plan
doesn't
provide
specific
housing
land
use
recommendations
for
this
property.
The
plan
does
discuss
that
new
developments
should
be
designed
to
fit
in
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood
and
that
the
predominant
land
use
in
Eastdale
single-family
housing
with
some
duplexes
and
apartments
scattered
throughout
the
community.
I
So
staff
had
recommended
a
condition
for
single-family
detached
units
only
and
with
parking
areas
not
to
be
within
the
perimeter
to
help
with
some
of
that
compatibility.
Based
on
the
plan
recommendation,
there
was
opposition
at
Planning
Commission
from
several
of
the
neighbors.
There
was
a
concern
about
access
to
property.
This
one's
a
little
unusual.
Someone
was
accessing
this
site
to
get
to
their
property
concerned
about
crime,
lower
property
values,
traffic
too
many
units,
Planning
Commission
found.
The
request
is
compatible
with
a
plan,
adjacent
land
uses
and
development
form.
I
I
Okay,
this
is
a
request
to
it:
Shelby
Circle
in
Middle
Valley
tree
zone
from
R1
Zone,
R4,
special
Zone
rt1,
residential
townhouse
Zone,
with
conditions
to
rt1
residential
townhouse
Zone
with
conditions
developed
Townhomes.
That
is
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
activity
on
the
site.
Council
has
seen
some
variation
of
these
properties
multiple
times
over
the
years.
I
Next
slide,
two
two
more
slides.
Here
we
go
back
one.
If
you
don't
mind,
as
mentioned,
there
have
been
several
zoning
cases
at
the
site.
Staff.
Try
to
the
staff
report
summarizes
the
current
zoning
and
allowable
uses
just
because
there's
been
so
much
activity
and
has
been
in
the
past
quite
a
bit
of
concern
and
interest
in
these
areas,
but
just
to
note
there's
a
current
R1
Zone
that
would
allow
six
single-family
detached
dwellings.
There's
an
R4
Zone
that
allows
approximately
19
dwelling
units
in
a
acre
there's.
I
Next
next
Slide,
the
Hixson
North
River
plan
recommends
low
density
residential
uses
for
this
area.
So
that's
predominantly
single-family
detached
homes.
There
is
a
goal
in
the
plan
to
create
younger
home
ownership
and
senior
housing
opportunities,
and
so
staff
noted.
The
request
was
slightly
more
dense
than
the
adjacent
low
density.
Residential
development
provides
housing
diversity
that
would
promote
attainable,
housing,
opportunities
for
younger
home
ownership
and
Senior
Housing,
and
also
pointing
back
to
the
allowable
mix
of
uses
there.
Already
the
side
is
surrounded
by
single
family
residences,
multi-family
residences,
townhomes
and
some
small-scale
commercial
uses.
I
The
proposed
rt1
zones
compatible
with
a
mix
of
uses
in
the
area
and
the
surrounding
development
is
consistent
with
an
area
that
is
transitioning
from
a
rural
residential,
develop
pattern
to
more
Suburban
residential
development
pattern.
There
are
currently
Town
Homes
located
on
the
corner
of
Middle,
Valley,
Road
and
Shelby,
and
their
Quest
is
compatible
with
surrounding
development
form,
so
staff
recommended,
with
some
conditions,
Planning
Commission,
had
a
similar
finding
next
slide.
Please-
and
this
comes
to
the
Planning
Commission
recommendation-
to
approve
maximum
of
26
units
maximum
of
four
units
per
vast
building.
I
That
is
something
that's
been
coming
out
of
our
planning
efforts
that
that
keeps
a
a
townhouse
development
a
little
bit
more
compatible.
So
it's
not
like
a
string
of
12
Town
Homes
there'll
only
be
one
entrance
for
Ingress
and
egress
there'd
be
one
from
now
more
than
one
from
Shelby
Circle,
none
more
than
one
from
Middle
Valley
in
a
20-foot
type,
B
landscape
buffer
with
a
property
bets,
the
R1
Zone.
I
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you.
Karen
you've
really
covered
everything
already
in
the
presentation.
Yes,
there
has
been
a
tremendous
amount
of
all
position
with
past
plans,
so
I
appreciate
the
level
of
detail
that
that
you've
gone
into
here.
Do
you
know
if
the
developer
has
met
with
the
neighborhood
association
in
the
in
the
area.
I
I,
don't
know
it
was
I,
don't
I,
don't
remember,
I,
don't
know
if
it
was
mentioned.
We
haven't
had
any
communication
that
I'm
aware
of
since
planning
commissioned
okay.
So
just
normally
we
hear
a
lot
of
Engagement
from
the
community
and
Zoning
cases
in
this
area,
and
we
just
haven't
heard
that
for
this
one
I.
E
If
you
would
just
let
them
know,
I'm
happy
to
give
you
or
or
the
developer,
if
they
don't
already,
have
it
the
the
contact
for
the
people
that
they
need
to
talk
to
that
have
been
very
interested
in
this
area,
but
considering
the
differences
in
this
and
what
I've
seen
in
the
past,
this
may
be
very
amenable
to.
Finally,
a
good
solution
for
what
will
eventually
go
in
in
that
place,
so
yeah.
If
you
would
just
confirm
with
that,
and
let
me
know
that'd
be
great
I
will.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
D
I
I
Me,
okay:
this
is
a
site
in
South,
Side
Gardens,
it's
a
rezoning
for
multi-family
dwellings,
300
units
which
is
quite
a
bit,
but
next
slide.
This
also
is
a
large
property.
It's
about
four
and
a
half
acres.
It's
a
mix
of
zoning
of
C3,
ugc
and
R3,
and
the
ugc
zone
is
a
long
Broad
Street.
That
was
through
a
zoning
study
and
then
there's
been
quite
a
few
reasonings
to
EGC.
I
I
This
proposed
multi-family
development
to
the
north
of
the
site
at
2525,
Williams
Street
and
the
surrounding
development
forum
is
a
mix
of
large
commercial
developments,
Urban
single-family
dwellings
and
duplexes,
and
institutional
Lots
with
Associated
parking.
There's
been
a
quite
a
bit
of
zoning
activity
in
the
site.
I
The
2018
South
Broad
District
study
recommends
single-family
housing,
mixed
housing,
medium
intensity
and
mixed
housing,
high
intensity
for
the
site,
just
depending
on
kind
of
where
it
is
located
on
the
street
frontages
and
the
variety
and
that
residential
is
based
on
context
and
location,
includes
variations
in
building
type
height
placement
and
massing.
The
intent
of
the
rezoning
is
to
bring
the
site
under
one
zoning
type,
because
right
now
that
you
know
it's
three
different
zoning
types
staff
found
the
proposal
proposed.
I
Development
is
compatible
with
South
Broad
District
plan
surrounding
land
uses
and
development
form
and
the
evolving
South
Side
Gardens
neighborhood.
The
recommendation
had
the
requested
been
for
C3
next
slide
next
slide:
Central
Business
Zone.
As
I
noted
when
we
looked
at
the
zoning
map,
there's
not
C3
in
the
area,
so
staff
recommended
denying
C3
and
instead
approving
ugc.
So
the
applicant
with
their
request
had
said
we
would
like
C3
Central,
Business
Zone
and
provided
15
conditions
that
would
go
along
with
that
and
those
are
the
standard
C3
conditions
that
we've
used
over
the
years.
I
Stats
recommendation
was
because
the
ugc
zone
is
already
in
place
and
allows
the
urban
form
that's
described
in
the
South
Broad
plan,
that
that
is
a
more
appropriate
tool
and
can
be
done
with
the
three
conditions
shown
here
in
order
to
meet
it.
Also,
it's
three
conditions
instead
of
15
is
easier
for
enforcement
and
permitting
so
next
slide.
Please,
there
was
no
opposition
at
Planning,
Commission,
Planning
Commission
had
similar
findings.
I
There
were
some
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
the
urban
form
of
this
development
and
thinking
about
those
recommendations
coming
out
of
the
South
Broad
plan,
so
Planning
Commission
also
recommends
denying
C3
for
kind
of
all
the
reasons
staff
said
and
the
applicant
was
also
found
that
acceptable
and
is
proposing
our
Planning
Commission
came
with
up
with
the
following
conditions:
residential
uses
only
accept
ground
floor,
commercial
and
office
uses
on
26th
and
27th
Street,
and
that's
really
to
activate
those
streets.
Active
Space
facing
the
street.
I
On
the
ground
floor,
there
was
some
discussion
about
ground
floor
parking
again:
Planning
Commission
thinking
about
how
the
spaces
reuses
use
the
term
Active
Space
and
then
the
maximum
of
curb
Cuts
along
Cowart
and
Williams,
unless
additional
carb
cuts
are
required.
So
planning
commission's
recommendation
takes
staff
recommendation
a
little
bit
farther
and
really
talks
about
making
those
active.
I
D
D
C
Karen,
don't
get
a
chance
to
talk
to
you
as
much
as
I
used
to,
but
maybe
in
the
future,
we'll
pick
that
up
so
ugc
when
we
changed
over
to
the
new
ugc
pre-august
21.
We're
four
stories
now
we're
at
five
stories.
So
my
question
is:
are
we
seeing
a
lot
of
five
stories
being
used
or
are
we
conditioning
those
down
from
there?
We.
I
I
Okay
next
slide,
so
6L
is
the
amendment
that
permits
existing
two-family
dwellings
that
were
zoned
R1
to
be
re-established
as
two
family
dwelling.
This
was
something
that
councilman
coonrod
had
requested
us
to
look
at
a
while
ago.
We
developed
a
report.
This
is
something
actually
the
planning
agency's
looked
at
quite
a
bit
over
the
years.
So,
basically,
as
long
as
the
structure
is
in
full
compliance
with
all
adoptive
residential
safety
codes,
the
the
project
can
be
back
in
the
building
can
be
brought
back
into
Conformity
as
a
two-family
dwelling.
I
So
we
did
have
language
in
place.
Existing
languages
shown
on
your
screen
that
if
power
had
been
discontinued
for
100
consecutive
days,
it
could
no
longer
be
brought
back
as
a
duplex.
So
over
the
years
we've
tried
a
variety
of
methods.
We
tried
the
special
permit.
We've
tried
a
series
of
rezonings
Planning
Commission
had
always
support,
ordered
this.
Looking
at
this
100
day,
item
I
think
they
spoke
to
council
about
that
many
years
ago,
but
this
amendment
a
next
slide.
The
proposed
language
talks
about
the
you
can't.
I
This
is
not
intended
to
apply
the
construction
of
new
new
two
family
dwellings.
These
are
only
ones
that
were
rezoned
to
R1
and
then
lost
their
conforming
status.
I
believe,
if
I
remember
the
report
correctly,
we
might
have
60
in
the
city
that
we
know
this
would
possibly
apply
to,
but
again
it
requires
compliance
with
property,
maintenance,
fire
building
and
other
codes
at
the
time
in
an
inspection.
D
M
I
And
these
were,
we
did
a
a
wheel,
a
windshield
survey,
trying
to
look
at
all
the
duplexes
to
kind
of
get
a
feel
for
that.
But
I'll
pull
the
number
and
we
also
got
the
list
of
ones
that
had
been
that
had
were
going
through.
Some
sort
of
inspection
by
the
city,
because
they've
been
boarded
up
or
condemned.
I
can
also
add
that
to
the
list.
D
F
A
I
I
The
intention
is
only
vacant
ones
that
not
ones
that
were
vacant,
and
then
they
converted
to
a
single
family
house,
because
that's
all
they
could
do
because
they
were
in
the
R1.
The
intention
is
you're
vacant.
You
can't
do
anything.
A
lot
of
them
are
sitting
there
because
they
they
can't
bring
them
back
as
to
your
family,.
A
I
A
J
A
I
A
A
E
A
I
D
F
I've
already
had
on
there,
it
stays
on
for
some
reason,
I
believe
you're
protected
in
that
regard
in
this
case,
because
it's
talking
about
existing
two
family
dwellings
as
of
the
effective
date
of
this
amendment.
So
if
it's
existing
at
this
point
in
time
as
a
two
family
dwelling,
then
it
would
continue
to
be
able
to
be
operating
if
it
was
not
continuing
at
this
point
in
time,
it
would
have
lost
that
legal
non-conforming
use.
M
Okay,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
make
sure
I'm
understanding
they
were
duplexes
and
then
they
were
without
power,
so
they
for
more
than
a
hundred
days.
They
cannot
go
back
to
duplexes
currently
currently,
so
this
ordinance
is
saying
what
was
put
in
place.
We
want
to
go
back
and
we
want
to
backtrack
and
let
them
come
back
as
duplexes.
So.
D
Right
now,
if,
if
someone
wants
to
continue
to
use
it
as
a
duplex,
they
have
to
apply
for
a
reason,
and
so
this
would
say
you
don't
have
to
apply
for
a
rezone.
You
currently
are
a
non-conforming
but
historic,
non-conforming
zone
of
R2,
and
it
only
removes
the
100
days
without
power
element
Dan.
You
look
like
you
want
to
add.
G
Yes,
we
want
them
to
become
duplexes
again
and
be
someone
the
owners
to
take
the
boards
off
reinvest
in
them
and
bring
them
up
to
a
habitable
structure
and
I.
Think
that's
the
part
here
that
we
need
to
make
sure
we
as
staff
once
we
know
that
this
is
something
the
council
supports.
We
need
to
have
a
work
with
Dallas
and
create
a
program
where
we're
contacting
those
owners
making
sure
we
know
the
process
by
which
they
become
legal.
M
M
I
know
for
a
fact:
Churchville
bushtown
area
is
probably
all
15
15
of
them
in
that
area,
probably
the
other
18
I'm,
not
quite
sure,
but
it
was
something
that
they
didn't
want
anyway,
so
it
was
put
into
effect
for
100
days.
So
now
we're
going
back
and
reversing
that
and
saying:
okay,
we
we
let
this
go
through
forever,
how
many
years
and
now
we're
going
to
go
back
and
put
it
back
to
duplexes.
G
Structures
in
one
area
obviously
creates
a
residential
area
where
there's
not
a
lot
of
eyes
on
the
street
or
families
in
the
homes,
and
so
I
think
this
is
trying
to
you
know,
fix
a
situation
where
we
have
a
lot
of
vacant
structures
and
and
try
to
occupy
them,
but
we
don't
want
to
be
done
in
the
wrong
manner.
I
completely
agree.
Well,.
M
You
know
that's
a
stereo
that
comes
along
with
duplexes,
so
you
know
once
again
and
I.
Don't
think
that
mindset
that
stereo
has
been
changed
in
all
stereotype
has
been
changed
at
all,
so
in
in
being
the
fact
that
they
are
located
where
they're
located
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
how
this
is
going
to
make
the
area
any
better
matter.
Of
fact,
it
seems
like
to
me
it's
going
to
be
I,
think
we're
shooting
ourselves
in
the
face.
G
When
we
do
that,
we
could
maybe
just
I
mean
this
is
a
good
I
mean
I'm,
glad
we're
having
this
conversation,
because
I
think
it's
a
good
first
step
would
be
to
have
a
community
meeting
with
some
of
those
folks,
and
we
kind
of
explain
it
and
again
have
Dallas
and
all
of
us
here
to
understand
where
we're
trying
to
get
to,
but
I
think
doing
that
with
the
community
as
part
of
the
process
of
works.
For
me
and
I'm
happy
to
be
a
part
of
that.
K
Thank
you
chair
as,
and
thank
you
for
explaining
what
you
are
the
one
to
have
done.
I
think
is
great
because
we
have
a
lot
of
you
know:
duplexes
that
are
just
sitting
banking
idle.
Their
eyesores
in
our
community
and
people
aren't
investing
in
them
to
convert
them
into
to
single-family
homes
and
I
could
think
of
the
ones
that
have
been
done.
A
lot
of
those
are
now
short-term
vacation.
K
K
So
it
makes
sense
to
have
those
duplexes
that
have
just
been
sitting
there
and
they'll
dance
LLC
want
to
invest
in
rehab
on
them
back
fixing
it
meeting
the
code
qualifications
now,
there's
two
apartments:
that's
how
I
view
the
two
apartments
for
somebody
to
stay
in
or
two
town
homes
or
two
condos,
like
we
gotta
get
out
of
the
mindset
of
just
calling
it
a
duplex,
because
it's
in
our
communities
right
and
as
Representatives.
It's
up
to
us
to
lead
the
discussion
in
a
positive
manner.
K
What's
best
for
the
city
of
Chattanooga
and
I
me
personally,
I
don't
feel
like
the
best
decision
for
our
constitution
was,
is
to
continue
to
have
these
eyesores
in
our
communities
and
are
further
declining
and
people
are
needing
places
to
stay.
So
as
Leaders.
We
need
to
be
leading
that
discussion
with
our
constituents
and
although
we
hear
what
our
constituents
are
saying,
but
sometimes
they're
in
their
own
way
of
positive
development,
that's
happening
in
our
community
and
we're
turning
things
down.
K
Because
of
that,
and
then
we
see
the
continued
results
of
how
it's
looking
the
drug
activity,
the
trafficking
in
our
communities,
the
continued
I
source,
and
then
we
hear
the
complaints
saying.
Oh,
we
need
investment.
We
need
improvements
in
our
neighborhood,
but
yet
we're
continuing
to
Champion
the
things
that
they
saying
that
they
don't
want.
That
is
not
beneficial
in
our
communities.
I
Madam,
chair
make
a
comment
to
a
lot
of
the
you
know.
The
river
to
Ridge
area
was
rezoned
during
that
strategic
neighborhood
initiative,
and
we
did
a
lot
of
down
zoning
from
R2
to
R1
and
I
mentioned
the
area
3
plan,
where
some
of
those
neighborhoods
really
opened
up
that
mix
of
uses
again
and
we're
in
I
guess
felt
stable
enough
there
that
there
was
a
you
know:
opportunities
for
additional
housing.
We
have
a
few
that
are
not
that
were
still
wanted.
I
M
Okay,
thank
you,
madam
cheers.
So
let
me
say
this:
sometimes
it's
not
better
to
say
this
is
better
than
nothing
or
this
is
better
than
what
we
have
now.
Sometimes
it's
just
to
get
it
right
period.
Just
don't
have
us
to
substitute
or
accept
whatever
just
to
make
it
look
to
what
to
put
a
coat
of
paint
on
it
to
make
it
look
better.
Just
get
it
right,
don't
just
put
it
in
there
and
say
you
can
have
this,
because
that
we
accept
too
much
of
that
now
in
District
8.
M
just
put
over
here
what
nobody
else
wants
and
you
deal
with
it
it's
better
than
what
you
have
okay.
So
then,
if
it's
I'd
rather
be
without
didn't
have
to
say,
this
is
second
Dairy
to
what
you
need.
Let's
just
find
something
to
make
it
right.
It's
got
to
be
something
other
than
bringing
it
back
to
where
it
was
because
the
chances
of
anything
better
coming
into
those
duplexes
and
what
was-
and
there
is
slim
to
none.
D
C
N
We
were,
we
are
currently
in
the
middle
of
issuing
an
RFP
and
going
through
the
RFP
process,
but
I
think
I
know
where
you're
going
yeah,
which
is,
is
there
sort
of
a
common
ground
to
address
councilwoman,
Knowles
concerns
and,
and
maybe
one
of
the
ways
of
doing
that
is
having
duplexes,
where
you
have
an
owner
on
one
side
and
a
renter
on
the
other
side,
which
I
think
is
I.
Think
where
you're
going
but
I
don't
want
to
put
words.
N
I
Excuse
me
it
is,
it
does
not
make
that
distinction.
There
are
condemned
blighted
buildings
on
the
list.
We
looked
at
just
to
see
what
the
whole
spectrum
of
everything
out
there-
I-
don't
I'm,
not
don't
know
enough
about
once
it
enters
like
The
Condemned
process
where
it
would
be
in
relationship
to
this.
Excuse
me
so
I
can
I
would
think
that
would
include
a
condemned.
B
I
beat
Dan
up
here
because
I'm
sitting
closer
than
he
is
on
that
topic-
that
that's
really
that's
more
of
a
DRP
issue,
because
there's
no
scenario
with
this
type
of
duplex
or
any
other
type
of
rehab,
where
you
can
for
lack
of
a
better
word.
You
know
slap
a
coat
of
paint
on
it,
put
an
extra
door
on
it.
They
go
through
the
entire
inspection
process
that
a
new
construction
build
goes
through.
They
check,
for
you,
know
current,
which
you
just
improved
and
increased
electrical
standards,
Plumbing
mechanical
everything
else.
B
G
So
if
I
could
just
add
a
that's,
absolutely
Our
intention
is
to
create
a
to
encourage
the
owner
to
have
a
financial
incentive
to
improve
the
structure.
But
one
of
the
things
I
would
say
is
we
did
when
we
published
the
the
document,
the
report
about
the
duplexes,
it
was
back
in
December,
it
was
probably
in
the
holidays,
and
a
lot
of
us
didn't
look
into
it
and
we
are
happy
to
come
back
and
go
through
that
presentation.
G
So
you
can
see
that
research
and
the
because
we
did
have
someone
go
and
take
a
photograph
of
every
duplex
that
we're
talking
about
and
then
categorize
them
by
where
they
have
were
occupied
now
or
they
and
we
then
we
can
talk
about.
Are
we?
You
know
what
condition
they're
in
but
again,
the
intention
here
is
to
create
a
program
by
which
we'd
get
these
properties
from
being
vacant
and
boarded
up
into
some
kind
of
you
know
beneficial
structure
to
the
community.
I
completely
agree.
G
C
Councilman
Ledford.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
Jermaine
you
were
you
no,
no
you're
good,
you're,
good
I'm.
Just
gonna
say
you
were
you.
You
were
reading
my
mind
as
far
as
trying
to
find
a
way
to
get
this
into
part
of
the
mayor's
affordable
housing
plan
and
I'm
I'm.
Just
asking
a
general
question:
could
this
be
part
of
that
100
million
dollar
investment?
Is
there
some
sort
of
path?
C
C
N
Look
at
that,
but
I'm
going
to
say
yes
now.
It
would
also,
it
would
all
depend
on
the
the
motivation
of
the
property
owner,
because
a
lot
of
these
duplexes
are
still
privately
owned.
Yes,
and
so
the
property
owner
would
have
to
participate
and
they
would
have
to
be
willing
to
participate.
But
we
would
certainly
look
I.
Don't
want
to
speak
for
Nicole,
but
she's
she's
working
hard
for
us
right
now,
but
I
think
that
Nicole
and
I
would
be
very
interested
in
bringing
something
like
that
to
fruition.
C
C
D
As
I
as
I
hear
this
conversation,
were
we
to
expand
this,
this
idea
into
some
type
of
ownership
with
rental
option,
I
think
we
would
need
to
think
about
what
happens
with
the
next
owner.
So
if
that's
a
legacy
product
or
not,
which
I
think
is
where
councilwoman
null
would
be
looking
for
a
legacy
of
improvement
on
the
pro
on
the
property.
D
Also
Mr
Noble
has
suggested
some
language
that
I
can
provide
to
you,
Karen
that
relates
to
councilman
Henderson's
question,
suggesting
that
we
could
add
some
language
that
refers
back
to
previous
city
ordinance
numbers
to
cover
the
the
idea
of
certain
things
would
not
be
subject
to
the
loss
of
their
legal
non-conforming
protection
as
of
the
effective
date
and
referencing
back
to
some
other
ordinances
that
we've
passed
to
help
cover
that
so
I'll
give
them
that.
Thank
you,
I,
wonder,
chairman
Ledford.
D
C
K
K
That's
just
for
those
properties,
that's
on
Milner
street,
but
again
for
those
that
remember
when
they
made
the
presentation,
you
have
to
get
somebody
to
qualify
to
buy
the
property
to
become
after
it's
fixed
up
or
who's
ever
going
to
do
it
so
buy
the
property,
and
then
they
can.
So
it's
no
special
thing
that
the
city
is
saying:
oh
we're
going
to
create
this
people
are
already
doing
it
and
like
I
talked
about
NACA
like
people
can
go
through
their
process
and
they
can
any
home
like
that.
So
I'm
supportive
of
it.
K
A
That's
really
what
I
was
going
to
say:
I
mean
I,
I,
think
and
and
I'm
not
sure
it
affects
a
lot
of
my
district
I'm,
not
sure
how
many
that
I
have
in
district
one,
but
I
certainly
want
the
constituents
of
eight
and
nine
to
feel
comfortable
with
this
program,
or
you
know
with
doing
this
and
present
it
in
such
a
way
that
it,
you
know
I
and
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
how
they
feel
I
think
I.
Think
I
would
rather
have
that
place
occupied
as
it
to
be
condemned
and
unhabited.
A
Inhabited
vacant
how's
that
I'll
get
it
I'll
get
it
here
in
a
minute,
but
but
I
think
you
know.
Maybe
this
is
a
part
of
a
a
bigger
picture
in
creating
a
Community
Trust
to
to
continue
that
generational
wealth
or
or
Legacy
or
whatever,
that
we're
that
we're
really
looking
for,
but
but
I
think
it
would
could
all
be
part
of
a
bigger
picture.
If
we're
going
to
defer
it.
Maybe
we
need
to
look
at
it
in
that
way.
H
For
a
while,
because
I
wasn't
sure
if
I
was
going
to
say
anything
but
for
me,
I
grew
up
in
a
duplex
in
District
8.
So
some
of
the
comments
that
about
not
being
you
know
what
was
theirs
is
not
going
to
be
better
or
something
you
know.
For
me,
it's
a
little
personal
because
that's
what
my
mom
could
afford.
That's
what
my
aunt
could
afford
in
District
a
her
in
her
duplex.
H
That's
what
my
uncle
could
afford
in
District
8
still
live
in
District
8
in
a
duplex
along
with
now
some
students
I
work
with,
and
things
like
that,
I'm
in
favor
of
moving
it
Forward,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
people
need
places
to
stay
and
the
we
moved
from
one
duplex
to
another
duplex
in
District,
eight
a
couple
blocks
over
and
when
we
moved
to
was
a
refurbished
one.
So
when
you
talked
about
refurbished
duplexes,
when
you
talked
about
you
know,
they're
not
going
to
be
just
you
know
anything.
H
There
are
people
coming,
it's
code
enforcement
and
we
were
excited
when
we
moved
into
this
new
refurbished
duplex.
So
when
I
think
about
the
people
in
District
8
the
people
that
I
know
now
that
everybody
doesn't
want
into
councilwoman
Conrad's
Point,
everybody
doesn't
want
a
big
house,
big
bedrooms
and
all
those
things.
Sometimes
you
just
have
you
and
your
two
kids
and
you
need
two
bedrooms
and
you
can't
afford
a
mortgage
or
you
can't
afford
that
right
now.
H
But
duplexes
are
an
opportunity,
because
now
my
mom
lives
in
a
housing
District,
but
the
duplexes
afforded
her
the
opportunity
to
take
that
step
and
I.
Think
it's
important
that
we
look
beyond
what
a
duplex
can
produce,
because
in
that
case,
I'm
a
I'm
I'm,
a
I'm,
a
I'm,
an
outcome
of
a
duplex,
because
we
spent
the
majority
of
my
life
from
third
grade
until
I
to
my
senior
year.
You
know
that's
what
10
10
years,
I
think
10
years
or
something
like
that,
but
I
spent
the
majority
of
my
life
in
a
duplex.
H
H
I
lived
in
a
duplex
in
District
eight,
when
I
first
got
out
of
college
I
had
my
own
duplex
so
because
I
was
familiar
with
them
and
knew
where
they
were,
because
where
I
grew
up
and
now
you
know,
I
have
a
home,
but
it
comes
from
broaden
our
perspective
and
really
honing
in
on
what
kind
of
woman
Rock
was
saying
is
saying
that
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day
it's
about.
How
can
we
help
people
go
move
up
economically?
H
It's
about
economic
affordability,
so
I'm
100
in
favor
of
not
deferring
this
moving
in
just
forward
and
if
we
need
to
come
back
and
have
those
additional
conversations
we
can
but
again
up
until
a
couple
years
ago,
I
was
in
apartments
and
before
I
moved
into
those
apartments.
The
duplex
allowed
me
helped
me
understand
how
to
budget
to
move
into
an
apartment,
an
affordable
apartment
then
Dad
to
a
house.
So
it's
economic
Mobility
to
me
it's
not
just
about
and
because
I
saw
my
mom
do
it.
H
So
it's
not
just
about
nobody
wants
duplexes,
because
everybody
has
different
circumstances.
Everybody
has
different
situations
and
it
doesn't
mean
somebody's
bad,
just
because
they're
in
a
duplex
it
just
means
that
they
just
may
not
have
the
economic
resources
at
this
time
to
be
whatever
they
need
to
be.
So
you
know
we
can
go
have
whichever
way
I
want
to
go.
I
just
think.
H
We
need
to
move
it
forward
because
there
are
people
right
now
that
need
somewhere
to
stay
and
if
we
can
get
these
back
on
the
road
these,
these
Property
Owners
contact
to
get
these
things
uncondemned,
because
District
8
isn't
the
only
one
that
has
duplexes
I
have
them
out
to
park.
I'm
sure
Demetrius
has
those
in
her
District.
Everybody
probably
has
some
in
their
District
yeah,
so
everybody
has
them.
So
we
have
to
really
look
at
it
against
the
councilman
I'm.
Sorry
to
send
all
your
points.
H
Councilman
cool
ride,
but
still
the
best
Council
on
the
quran's
point
about
we
have
to
look
at
what's
better
for
the
whole
city
and
helping
people
find
somewhere
to
stay
is
important
and
somewhere
like
a
duplex,
is
important
because
it
helps
people
with
affordability
and
they
can
nothing
like
she
said:
nothing's
stopping
them
from
somebody
buying
one
living
on
one
side.
I
know
someone
doing
that
now,
living
on
one
side
written
the
second
side.
H
D
Thank
you
very
much
great
discussion.
Everybody
I
think
based
on
the
conversation
that
we've
had.
It
would
be
premature
to
make
any
kind
of
decision
to
defer,
but
we'll
have
it
on
the
agenda
next
week
and
then
we
can
make
a
decision
then,
once
everybody's
had
some
time
to
think
about
it.
Yes,
Chris
thank.
B
I
can
arrange
for
an
inspector
to
to
meet
us
there,
and
we
can
talk
about
the
inspection
process
and
the
things
that
are
required
to
rehab
and
change
those
just
if
you'll,
let
me
know
after
the
meeting
or
tomorrow
or
the
next
day,
we'll
set
it
up
and
we'll
get
you
whatever
information
you
need,
regardless
of.
If
you
defer
this
or
keep
it
on
the
agenda,
the
offer
stands.
I
So
the
the
slide's
not
out,
but
the
next
ordinance
Amendment
amends
the
C2
convenience
commercial
Zone.
It
allows
the
ReUse
of
existing
hotel
and
motel
buildings
into
multi-family
residential
buildings
without
requiring
an
increase
in
the
minimum
number
of
parking
spaces.
So
we're
doing
this
by
removing
the
minimum
lot
area
for
dwellings
and
clarifying
that
parking
requirement.
We
did
discuss
this
strategic
planning
a
couple
weeks
ago.
I
know
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion.
The
ordinance
before
you
is
what
was
developed
for
Planning
Commission
was
recommended
for
approval
by
Planning
Commission
and
is.
J
I
So
it's
kind
of
clunky
and
we've
talked
about
doing
something
different
in
the
the
new
zoning
ordinance.
But
that's
where
we
end
up
with
that.
It's
the
same
calculation
in
the
R3,
but
that's
how
we
have
that
kind
of
standard.
19
dwelling
units
at
acre
across
the
city,
the
urban
General
commercial
Zone,
as
you
know,
doesn't
have
that
and
we've
been
using
that
as
a
tool
to
get
developments
over
the
19
units.
An
acre,
I'm
assuming
this
is
just
an
older
calculation.
I
O
I
know
the
administration
wants
to
get
people
housed,
Chris
I
get
it,
but
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is:
where
is
the
protection
from
turning
these
into
immediate
slums,
where
we've
already
seen
several
examples
of
them?
My
colleagues
have
talked
about
them
in
their
district
and
even
though
it
was
archaic
and
cumbersome,
at
least
if
there
had
to
be
a
discussion
about
change.
O
There
could
also
be
a
discussion
about
conditions
all
right,
councilman
Ledford,
distributed
several
weeks
ago,
some
beautiful
prints
of
what
these
could
look
like
and
how
they
could
behave,
and
this
leaves
It
Wide,
Open
Wide
Open
without
anything
else,
for
the
sorts
of
things
that
we're
trying
not
to
happen
to
happen
so
I'm
not
against
it
per
se.
But
to
just
lob
it
out
there
without
the
protections
I
think
is
dead
wrong.
I
You
make
a
that
I'll
make
I'll
make
so
I
apologize.
A
hotel
motel
can
be
converted
to
a
multi-family
unit.
If
you
can
meet
the
density
calculation,
so
I
think
we
had
an
example
of
one
that
had
enough
space
that
they
could
almost
do
a
one-for-one
conversion.
If
you
can
meet
your
density
calculation,
so
it
is
that
so
it
is,
the
use
is
allowed.
You
have
both
of
those
uses.
This
would
remove
it,
so
it
would
allow
more
units
than
than
most
people's
calculation
would
allow.
O
But
I
don't
mind
the
units,
it's
it
and
I'm
not
saying
the
way
we
do.
Things
now
is
correct:
I'm
not
saying
that
at
all,
but
there
has
to
be
some
way
we
can
protect
our
neighborhoods
and
our
constituents,
and
we
usually
did
that
the
archaic
Way
by
conditioning
things.
If
it's
a
matter
of
right,
then
we
have
no
say
so
and
I
know
the
of
at
least
two.
Now
that
have
come
forward,
then
it
said
can't
wait
to
do
this
slap,
some
paint
on
it
slap
a
burner
in
there,
and
here
we
go.
O
We've
already
had
problems
with
these
talked
about
one
in
District
Five,
some
in
the
other
districts,
so
I'm,
not
against
the
concept
I'm
talking
about
the
protection
from
Neighbors
and
neighborhoods,
and
the
true
protection
for
our
citizens
to
have
clean
decent
places
to
live,
not
at
the
hands
of
slumlords.
It's
just
that
simple.
B
B
There
are
none,
that's
why
I'm
here
and
as
I
promised
you
last
week,
I
can
tell
you
what
what
are
these
steps
in
converting
a
motel
to
something
residential?
And
this,
just
like
the
duplex
question,
is
not
as
simple
as
a
coat
of
painting
a
new
door.
So
if,
if
I
own,
a
motel
on
Brainerd,
Road
and
I
want
to
convert
it
to
Apartments,
let's
say
when
I
start
that
process
with
the
city.
Through
the
remodel
process,
it
is
treated
with
the
same
level
of
inspection
and
requirements
as
a
new
construction.
B
That
means
once
again,
the
new
electrical
codes
that
you
just
passed
have
to
be
followed
in
the
new
structure
before
it
can
be
get
a
CO
for
anyone
to
live
there.
They
all
have
to
have
their
own
electric
there's
a
certain
level
that
you
have
to
do.
Even
without
those
new
code
requirements
to
go
from
a
motel
to
an
apartment,
they
all
have
to
have
their
own
electrical
panel
that
they
can
access.
They
go
in
most
cases
nearly
all
cases
because
of
how
large
they
are.
They
have
to
get
sprinkled.
B
O
B
We
can,
we
can
add,
more
I
can
get
you
the
full
list
that
I
have
from
DRP
the
process
of
all,
but
you
get
all
the
inspections
that
you
get
with
new
construction
plus
you
have
to
meet
the
new
energy
standards
which
are
difficult
for
some
to
meet.
They
will
have
to
put
a
lot
of
money
into
the
buildings,
but
the
best
way
to
protect
quality
of
life
and
protect
residents
is
not
through
conditional.
Zoning
we're
one
of
only
a
handful
of
cities
in
the
entire
state
that
relies
on
that.
G
G
We
agree
on
just
about
everything,
but
I
I
have
already
spoken
with
councilman
Henderson
and
with
starting
a
conversation
with
our
City
attorney
about
what
does
it
mean
to
have?
Does
commercial
design
standards
in
a
design
review
and
our
new
code,
because
I
personally
agree
I
think
we
should
have
some
we
should
get
to
decide.
The
council
or
city
government
should
get
to
decide
the
appearance
of
a
lot
of
things,
not
everything,
but
in
commercial
districts
it
just
makes
sense,
I
mean
so
I.
G
O
I
G
O
D
H
Thank
you
so
much
and
I'm
just
going
to
Echo
some
of
the
sentiments
of
councilwoman
Burrs.
After
hearing
the
stories
we
heard
about
the
slum
Lord
and
the
neighborhoods
coming
in
I
think
there's
a
missing
layer
of
protection
in
here
for
communities.
So
if
you
want
to
convert
something,
you
know
because
I'm
all
for
converting
it
like
she
said
to
choo
choo.
There
are
some
really
nice
places
really
nice
places
to
help
convert
very
nicely.
H
But
then
you
have
those
who
aren't
running
a
good
ship
now
and
want
to
convert
like
you
know,
convert
later.
So
if
there
could
be
something
within
this
that
addresses
that
that
says,
you
know,
you've
had
a
hundred
police
calls
this
year,
especially
when
you
see
domestic
assault,
rape
of
sex
trafficking.
You
see
all
that
on
the
list
and
then
here
we
are
just
letting
them
by
right.
Convert
it
over
to
a
you
know,
an
apartment
unit.
H
You
know,
that's
I,
don't
think
that's
good
for
our
citizens,
because
we
don't
know
what
they're
going
to
do
once
I
mean
yeah.
They
may
be
nice,
but
you
never
know
how
it's
going
to
go,
because
there's
no
true,
true
follow-up
and
once
we're
done
zoning
something
a
lot
of
times.
You
know
we're
just
done
with
it,
so
something
that
addresses
that
some,
some
stipulation
or
something
that
addresses
some
of
these
properties
that
have
some
Lords
or
management
companies
that
have
shown
that
they
just
they're
not
gonna,
do
they're
not
going
to
do
right.
H
You
know
you
can
even
probably
get
some
of
that
from
the
police.
They
know
where
they
are.
They
know
which
houses
you
know,
which
which
units
they
are
which
buildings
they
are
and
so
being
able
to
address.
That
is
very
important
just
because
we
see
that
we
see
that
on
you
know
23rd
Street,
and
we
see
it
all
over
the
place
yeah.
H
So
it's
all
over
so
just
being
able
to
I
think
if
there
was
some
Protections
in
here
for
the
community,
some
protections
there,
because
I'm
for
affordable
housing
for
getting
people
somewhere
to
stay,
but
at
the
same
time
the
landlords
have
to
have
some
type
of
accountability
and
right
now.
This
is
just
letting
them
slide
on
through
and
do
what
they
want
to.
B
B
My
certainly
and
I
would
look
forward
to
if
the
council
has
specific
ideas
about
new
requirements.
We
can
build
in
Dallas
and
I
met
about
this
yesterday
to
talk
about
how
we
could
add
new
requirements
to
the
process,
I
will
tell
you
that
currently,
there's
no
way
to
just
flip
a
switch
and
go
from
Motel
to
apartment.
Even
if
you
meet
the
the
current
parking
requirements
and
the
current
density
requirements,
which
again
is
all
this
does
those
two
things
it
doesn't
do
all
these
other
things.
There's
no
way
to
just
do
that.
B
You've
got
to
move
everybody
out.
You've
got
to
go
through
the
inspection
process.
It's
going
to
be
empty
for
at
least
six
months.
If
you're
lucky,
you
have
to
rebuild
the
thing
just
the
way
the
building
codes
are
written.
You
can't
just
change
it.
So
what
that
does
that
we
don't
have
now
is
it
lets
us
send
building
inspectors
into
the
structure?
That
may
be
a
problem
today
and
we
don't
get
that
offer
opportunity
if
it
just
stays
a
motel
and
continues
to
be
a
problem
because
it's
run
down
or
whatever
the
situation
is.
C
I
C
It
and
I
guess
what
I'm
hearing
is
a
valid
and
and
valid
concerns
it's
about
quality
and
I
think
we
want
quality
and
I.
Think
it's
okay
to
ask
for
quality
when
I
first
met
Dan.
We
talked
about
design
standards,
something
I've
mentioned
in
that
in
the
conference
room
years
ago,
and
it's
kind
of
frowned
upon
I
think
by
RPA
at
the
time,
but
now
it
seems
to
come
around
and
be
an
okay
topic
to
talk
about
it's
okay
to
have
standards,
I!
C
Think
it's
okay
to
ask
our
developers
to
adhere
to
a
level
of
quality
that
I
think
people
deserve
and
and
I
think
it's
okay
for
us
to
ask
for
it.
So
I
would
encourage
us
moving
forward
to
come
up
with
a
few
of
those
and
then
let's
see
if
we
can't
get
them
implemented
into
this
and
then
build
on
it
as
we
move
into
our
next
stage
of
rezoning
our
rezoning
laws.
O
O
D
You
know
in
this
conversation,
I
I
do
feel
like
we
are
talking
about
kind
of
two
different
avenues
for
things:
we're
talking
about
enforcement
of
of
our
codes
of
our
of
our
life
safety
issues
and
we're
talking
about
zoning.
When
we
talk
about
design
standards,
y'all
I,
just
don't
think
that
split
level.
Ranches
are
the
greatest
thing
that
ever
happened
to
Chattanooga,
but
a
lot
of
people
live
in
them
and
love
them.
D
I
also,
I.
Don't
know
that
beyond
the
Chuchu
project,
we
have
an
Apples
to
Apples
comparison,
because
the
projects
that
we're
discussing
that
have
caused
such
consternation
and
concern
in
our
communities
and
valid
concern
are
not
apartment
complexes.
They
are
in
fact
motels
that
are
being
used
in
a
way
that
is
non-conforming
with
their
business
license.
D
So
I
see
that
as
two
different
conversations
and
I
I
don't
know
that
adding
a
boxwood
shrub
in
front
of
a
building
makes
a
dramatic
difference
in
a
person's
quality
of
life
or
taking
away
a
a
parking
space
for
a
car
that
doesn't
exist
for
a
tenant
that
has
a
long-term
lease
that
also
has
tenant
rights
and
tenant
rights.
Do
make
a
significant
impact
on
quality
of
life?