►
From YouTube: Chattanooga City Council Agenda 12-6-22
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
C
E
Okay,
good
afternoon,
everyone
Welcome
to
our
Tuesday
December
6th
agenda
session,
we'll
take
a
motion
on
the
minutes.
F
E
Have
the
motion
they
have
a
second,
they
will
stand
without
objection.
We
apologize
for
starting
a
few
minutes.
Late
strategic
planning
did
run
over.
We
had
a
lot
to
talk
about
this
afternoon
and
if
you
would
counsel
look
over
our
agenda
session
packet
this
afternoon,
we
have
a
first
reading,
Madam
clerk.
Should
that
say
final
reading
on
ordinance.
E
E
Okay,
okay,
just
want
to
make
sure
that
is
noted
for
the
record.
These
are
not
first
readings.
These
are
final
readings,
so
Council.
If
you
would
take
a
look
at
under
Council
Office
legal
Public,
Works
I
will
watch
the
board
for
your
light.
If
you
have
any
questions
on
items
under
final
reading
and
I
do
want
to
say
Dr
Lambert.
Thank
you
for
your
email
on
the
community
health
item
that
helped
me
tremendously
understand
the
role
of
the
assistant.
E
I
believe
we
have
six
items:
Miss
Vicki!
Are
you
in
the
room
six
items?
We
have
no
emergency
purchases,
no
rfps
and
no
sole
source
to
report
this
evening.
Is
that
correct
getting
a
thumbs
up
from
Julia?
Thank
you
very
much
any
questions
on
our
purchases
and
those
of
you
following
along
at
home
for
the
first
time
May
our
purchases
are
sent
to
us
last
week.
We
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
the
administration
for
questions
and
then
at
this
opportunity
again
at
3,
30.,
Council
I'm,
seeing
no
light
on
purchases.
E
F
Yes,
on
the
planning
item:
oh
this
2022
case
number
20220240,
for
that
one
I
would
like
to
have
it
removed
from
the
agenda
if
possible,
as
there
are
some
there's
some
issues
that
have
come
up
with
that
one
I
know
it's
going
to
be
in
Planning
and
Zoning
in
our
committee
today
and
I
would
like
to
see
a
presentation
on
that
one,
but
if
it
can
be
removed
from
the
agenda
until
we
address
some
of
the
concerns
that.
B
E
The
agenda
is
ale
yeah,
we'll
cover
that
in
Planning
and
Zoning
this
afternoon.
Yes,
okay,.
E
At
the
moment,
very
good
and
I
also
have
an
item
that
is
very
complex
per
and,
and
has
some
several
issues
unresolved
item
F
in
my
district,
that
I
will
be
addressing
and
planning,
and
zoning
as
well.
That
I
do
not
feel
is
ready
to
move
forward.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Madam
Vice,
chair,
Dr,
Burns
I,
see
you
have
your
light,
is
on.
You
have
the
floor.
Man.
H
G
G
Hey
Mr,
chair,
I,
don't
know
your
your
preference
here
so
they're
reworking
their
proposal.
Is
it
better
to
remove
it
from
the
agenda
until
they're,
ready.
E
E
I
am
seeing
no
lights
for
future
considerations.
I
do
know.
We
have
no
Department
reports
this
afternoon,
but
I
do
believe.
We
have
a
short-term
vacation
rental
conversation
that
we
need
to
cover.
So
whoever
would
like
to
start
with
that.
I
would
like
to
advise
that
the
extension
for
that
has
been
requested
to
be
put
on
for
the
13th
that
was
mentioned
in
the
ad
hoc
meetings,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
the
day
of
the
moratorium
we
meet
the
following
day.
E
I
You
Mr
chair
number
one
I,
guess
if
we
need
a
30-day
extension
on
that
I
guess
that
might
be
appropriate
in
order
in
in
the
fact
that
we
have
bumped
up
against
our
deadline
running
out,
and
we
really
haven't
come
up
with
a
good
solution.
I
will
say
this:
I
have
been
talking
with
the
city
attorney
about
drafting
an
amendment
to
our
current
ordinance.
I
That
would
address
number
one
density
and
what
I've
talked
with
the
city
attorney
about
is
placing
a
density
cap
as
a
percentage
in
the
overlay
to
housing
stock,
also
placing
a
buffer
zone
that
will
of
some
determination,
which
I
thought
maybe
next
week.
I
would
have
something
more
definite
that
would
create
administrative
hearing
officer
so
that
we
can
begin
to
judge
how
enforcement
is
going
to
work,
because
what
I
heard
from
this
Council
whenever
the
ordinance
was
presented,
that
they
really
wanted
a
track
record
to
see
so
I
think.
I
The
only
way
we're
going
to
create
a
track
record
is
if
we
put
this
back
on
the
books
with
a
administrative
hearing
officer.
It
also
I've
asked
the
City
attorney
to
in
the
amendment,
to
create
a
seven-member
board
to
hear
cases
that
would
come
normally
to
this
city
council
so
that
we
can
begin
appointing
a
committee
to
hear
those
cases
as
well.
I
E
I
I
I
We've
we've
operated
within
the
overlay
and
while
it
may
not
have
been
perfect
and
and
sometimes
perfect,
becomes
the
enemy
of.
What's
better
and
I,
don't
want
I,
don't
want
the
perfect
to
get
in
the
way
of
better
I.
Do
want
this
ordinance
to
be
better
I,
think
it
can
be
better
and
so
I
I
think
Mr
attorney.
I
You
said
you
could
have
that
to
me
next
week
and
maybe
into
the
hands
of
this
Council,
to
be
taking
a
look
at
hopefully
before
Christmas,
so
that
we
could
consider
this
after
Christmas
as
well,
and
so
that
we
can.
We
can
establish
a
track
record,
we'll
keep
the
overlay
as
it
is
currently
and
create
administrative
hearing
officer.
I
think
we
probably
do
need
to
raise
the
initial
application
fee
for
the
non-owner
occupied,
maybe
perhaps
even
the
renewal
fee
to
kind
of
help
pay
for
some
of
the
costs
that
we
will
occur
from
this.
I
I
E
E
E
I
I
want
to
have
it
in
everybody's
hands
by
next
week
and
then
we
can
place
it
in
a
legislative
committee
and
then
and
then
address
it.
When
we
get
back.
E
Understood
my
next
question
is
in
the
creation
of
the
aho,
which
I
feel
is
a
very
critical
part
of
enforcement.
Moving
forward
for
not
just
short-term
vacation
rentals,
but
are
you?
Are
you
tying
in
the
Aho
into
your
legislation
specifically
and
only
related
to
short-term
vacation
rentals,
or
are
we
creating
an
Aho
as
a
standalone
entity
outside
of
that
outside
of
that
to
possibly
address
other
well.
I
I
think
we
already
have
established
an
aho
that
could
address
some
of
the
housing
that
we
talked
about
earlier.
We
have
that
in
place
that
legislation
in
place
this
legislation,
the
AHL
that
I'm
talking
about,
would
specifically
be
in
the
short-term
vacation
rental
ordinance.
Okay,
so
that
we
can
address
any
punitive
consequences
through
an
aho
instead
of
City
Court.
Okay,.
E
F
F
We
need
to
show
people
that
we
can
enforce
and
that
we
are
serious
about
ensuring
that
our
community
stay
intact
and
so
I'm
100
for
the
administrative
hearing
officer
also
I
love
the
seven
member
board
and
this
city
cap
and
all
those
things
and
I
believe
the
moratorium
ends
January,
the
9th
okay
and
so
January
tonight
and
so
I
believe
there
was
a
request
from
the
administration
to
extend
it
six
months.
F
So
if
Mr
Anderson
can
come
up
and
give
an
explanation
of
of
that
request
and
then
what
would
that
entail?
The
six
months
entail.
D
Thank
you,
madam
Vice
chair.
The
administration
agrees
with
councilman
Henderson
on
on
most
of
those
points.
We
know
that
we've
got
to
have
a
track
record
of
enforcement.
The
reason
we
know
that
is
I've
met
with
each
of
you
individually
and
talked
about
this
and
the
consensus
that
I
heard
from
almost
all
of
you
was
that
you
wanted
to
see
a
few
months
of
enforcement
before
you
would
agree
to
any
new
rules.
D
Our
hope
is
that
we
can
show
you
how
the
aho
functions.
You
can
see
multiple
cases
of
it.
You
can
see
the
difference
in
the
aho
and
city
court
and
then
can
decide
on
what
the
new
rules
are
going
to
be
based
on
the
the
wishes
of
the
council
at
that
time,
but
because
the
moratorium
now
ends
the
day
before
the
first
meeting
of
next
year
after
the
holiday
break.
F
Okay,
just
so
clear,
so
the
administrative
hearing
officer,
we
would
not
be
able
to
have
them
staffed
until
around
March
and
then
from
that
we
would
want
90
day.
You
know
90
days
of
enforcement,
which
would
be
the
additional
three
months
to
show
that
we've,
whether
this
was
a
good
idea
or
not
whether
it
worked
or
not
so,
okay,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
some
clarity
on
the
on
the
requests
from
the
administration
as
well.
Yes,.
D
Ma'am
and
if
we
don't
have
something
passed
prior
to
the
end
of
the
year,
the
moratorium,
which
means
it
has
to
be
voted
on
on
first
read
next
week,
the
moratorium
will
expire
and
we
will
be
inundated
with
new
applications
on
January
10th
without
a
new
system
in
place.
Oh.
F
Okay-
and
we
don't
want
to
do
that
because
then
it
would
seem
like
the
months
were
just
the
waste,
so
okay,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
there
was
some
clarity
on
what
the
six
month
extension
would
entail,
and
and
I
appreciate
that
did
you
have
anything
else,
Miss
Anderson,
no.
I
I'm
not
sure
why
the
request
didn't
come
through
the
chair
of
the
ad
hoc
committee.
I
I
want
you
to
understand.
This
is
really
the
first
I'm
hearing
of
it
and
I
had
discussed
with
you
prior
to
this
that
you
would
present
your
legislation.
I
would
present
legislation
as
a
backup
in
the
event
that
that
other
legislation
didn't
pass
and
now
I'm
learning
you
want
a
six-month
extension
I've
got
a
problem
with
that
reason:
I'm
asking
this
counsel
if
they
would
consider
a
30-day
so
that
we
can
amend
our
current
ordinance
so
that
we
have
more
than
a
three-month
track
records
of
enforcement.
G
Thank
you
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
the
track
record
and
where
I'm
a
bit
confused
chip
is,
if
we
don't
have
the
things
in
place,
we
won't
have
enforcement.
So
how
can
it
be
a
longer
track
record
that
I
will
present
to
the
council
will
have
those
things
it
will
create
an
aho.
It
will
create
a
seven-member
committee.
I
Account
to
address
the
affordable
housing
because
you've
created
buffer
to
address
change
in
the
neighborhood.
Congratulations,
so
it
will
address
those
things.
It
will
create
all
of
those
things
that
would.
That
would
be
indeed
the
other
legislation,
but
it
just
continues
to
operate
within
the
current
overlay
that
we
have
so
that
we
can
just
we
can
proof
what
we're
doing
I.
G
I
I
I
I
identify
so
knowing
this
Council
and
your
the
amendment
may
be
perfect
in
all
respects.
It
takes
us
a
while
to
get
all
the
wording
right
and
all
of
that
and
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
shouldn't.
We
get
all
that
done
before
we
carte
Blanc
agree
to
the
terms
of
any
extension.
G
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
and
maybe
I'm
missing
it
and
that's
okay
I-
think
we
need
to
get
everything
cleaned
up
before
we
start
piling
on
more
work.
To
look
at
that
we
haven't
even
gotten
the
system
to
clean
up.
That's
number
one
number
two:
if
we
have
a
seven
person
committee
to
look
at
this,
are
you
talking
about
us?
G
So
it
would
a
committee
that
wouldn't
be
us
I
hear
you
and
I
get
everything
you're
saying
and
I'm
at
30.
000
feet
noted
at
any
of
this,
because
this
is
I'm
understanding.
What
you're
saying
I
I
think
I'm
more
comfortable
getting
the
enforcement
all
cleaned
up
before
we
do
anything
else,
because
where
we
are
now,
we've
been
layering
things
and
man,
it's
created
a
mess
so
I'm,
my
friend
I'm,
not
not
hearing
you.
I
H
Thank
you
chair.
This
process
is
an
interesting
sandwich.
The
initial
resolution
to
create
a
moratorium
felt
like
it
kind
of
came
out
of
nowhere
and
passed
very
quickly,
and
at
that
point
I
said.
I
I
was
uncomfortable
and
said.
We
need
to
give
some
people
some
time
to
get
their
houses
in
order,
and
this
body
chose
to
move
forward
and
since
that
time,
with
the
creation
of
the
ad
hoc
committee,
I
have
really
respected
the
intentionality
of
the
work
that
we
have
done.
H
The
the
depth
of
research,
the
depth
of
input
from
our
neighborhoods
and
our
business
Community
there's
just
been
a
lot
of
thoughtful
feedback
and
in
as
much
as
this
is
the
first
that
you've
heard
about
extending
a
moratorium.
Today,
it's
the
first
that
I,
as
an
active
member
of
the
committee,
have
heard
about
the
potential
of
alternative
legislation
being
brought.
H
My
understanding
as
an
active
member
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
has
always
been
that
the
that
we
were
counting
on
the
administration
to
to
bring
us
legislation
now
I'm,
not
opposed
at
all
to
us,
taking
the
Baton
but
I
do
want
us
to
proceed
with
as
much
thoughtfulness
as
we
have
thus
far
moved
forward,
and
you
know
with
the
proposed
ordinance
that
came
from
the
administration.
There
was
an
intent
to
have
two
additional
Community
input
sessions
to
talk
about
the
nuances
of
that
request.
H
Given
the
fact
that
the
moratorium
is
scheduled
to
end
in
early
January,
I
am
deeply
concerned
about
suddenly
sandwiching
this
with
a
flurry
of
activity
that
potentially
isn't
fully
vetted
so
I
feel
like
we
went
into
it
that
way.
I
don't
want
to
finish
it
that
way.
I'd
like
us
just
to
to
finish
this
with
as
much
depth
of
thought
as
we
have
have
behaved
as
the
as
the
ad
hoc
Community.
H
It's
important
to
me
that
that
the
work
and
the
time
that
we've
all
put
into
it
and
every
member
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
has
put
a
great
deal
of
time
into
this,
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
community
members
and
business
owners
who
have
also
invested
a
great
deal
of
time
that
that
be
honored
in
good
faith
and
I
am
certainly
in
favor
of
going
ahead
and
making
some
changes
to
the
ordinance
to
cover
the
to
to
establish
the
administrative
hearing
officer
and
to
cover
the
cost
of
the
enforcement
work
that
we
need
to
do.
H
But
it
does
concern
me
that
it
will
all
have
felt
a
little
bit
flippant
to
have
had
a
moratorium
and
then
without
a
solid
answer.
H
Lift
it,
because
I
do
think
that
that
Chris
has
a
good
point
about
a
flood
of
applications.
When
I
mean
you
councilman,
Henderson
and
councilwoman,
dotley
I
think
councilwoman.
No,
we're
all
very
vocal
about
the
fact
that
this
is
we've
got
to
get
a
hold
of
this.
We
can't
let
this
this.
H
These
horses
run
wild
and
I
fear
that
that's
really
right
where
we
would
be
not
having
seen
the
the
proposed
legislation,
but
a
density
cap
in
the
overlay,
a
buffer
from
R1
I,
have
a
lot
of
questions
about
what
that
means
and
with
the
density
suggestion
that
was
brought
to
me
by
Administration
I
had
a
million
alarm
Bells
going
off,
I
didn't
like
it
when
I
started.
H
Thinking
about
25
of
my
multi-family
housing
could
be
short-term
vacation
rental,
and
that
suggestion
the
numbers
don't
work
for
my
district
right
and
there's
a
lot
to
be
thought
through
here
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
take
the
time
so
I'm
very
open
to
considering
how
long
that
should
be
extended
so
that
we
can
do
the
work
of
the
people
well
and
in
a
thoughtful
way.
Thank
you,
chair.
E
Thank
you,
councilwoman
Phil.
Can
you
help
us
out
a
little
bit
because
I
feel
like
we're
talking
almost
about
two
different
things:
legislation
coming
from
councilman,
Henderson
and
I
would
like
to
note
I.
The
chair
would
really
prefer
to
see
a
recommendation
come
from
the
ad
hoc
committee
on
a
time
frame.
I
think
that
would
be
appropriate.
So
I
do
note
your
objection,
sir,
and
I
and
I
appreciate
that
and
because
in
respect
the
work
that
you
all
have
done.
E
But
let's,
let's
separate
this
into
two
two
different
items:
one
Phil:
will
you
address
a
little
bit
for
me
on
the
time
frame
of
the
moratorium
separate
from
the
legislation
proposal
from
councilman
Henderson?
Yes,.
A
Sir,
the
ordinance
that
established
the
moratorium
here
was
back
in
April
of
2022.
at
that
point
in
time
it
was
an
amendment
that
was
added
to
chapter
11
of
the
city
code.
So
we
can't
do
this
just
by
resolution.
It
has
has
to
be
done
by
an
ordinance
Amendment
and
the
moratorium
at
least
provided
that
there
would
be
a
I
guess,
a
moratorium,
beginning
in
April
of
2022
up
to
January
the
9th
of
2023,
which
unfortunately
happens
to
be
a
Monday,
not
your
Tuesday,
which
you
would
normally
adopt.
A
So
the
recommendation
for
a
moratorium
needs
to
be
done
before
the
end
of
that
term
to
extend
it
for
some
length
of
time
in
order
to
be
able
to
have
this
accomplished
and
hopefully
resolved
by
adoption
of
the
the
council
by
a
new
ordinance.
A
Otherwise,
the
moratorium
expires
on
a
Monday
before
you
meet,
and
you
need
to
have
that
done
so
that
that's
the
reason
I
believe
that
there
was
a
requests
for
six
months,
doesn't
have
to
be
for
the
entire
time
of
the
six
months,
because
the
current
ordinance
says
up
to
and
including
the
date
and
it
can
be
done
before.
Then.
If
you
get
that
time.
E
So
what
we're
talking
about
in
in
that
request
is
fulfilling
what
council
members
had
submitted
to
the
committee,
which
was
we
would
love
to
see
the
aho
created?
We
would
love
to
see
a
track
record
and
I
believe
councilman
Henderson
has
alluded
to
that
in
his
statements.
I
still
feel
that
is,
yes,
I
think
we
need
to
see
that.
E
E
So
what
I
would
like
to
ask
is
for
the
committee
members
to
talk
with
the
administration
and
figure
out
something
of
a
bit
of
a
compromise
or
language
that
ensures
that
we
move
quickly
as
possible,
but
also
fulfilling
what
council
had
said
in
the
in
the
byway
oven
of
seeing
a
track
record
of
enforcement
and
getting
this
aho
in
place
soon
very
soon
and
I
appreciate
you
pushing
on
that
councilman
Henderson
100,
because
I
think
that
is
the
critical
part
of
how
we
move
forward,
and
we
owe
that
to
everybody
who
has
a
vested
interest
in
this.
E
D
Okay,
chairman
we're
flexible
in
the
amount
of
time
the
moratorium
the
council
wants.
I
will
say
that,
in
my
talks
with
this
body
individually,
as
I
do
on
a
regular
basis
in
a
way
that
I
understand
that
you
cannot
do
with
each
other.
The
six
month
figure
was
that
did
not
come
from
me
or
the
mayor
that
came
from
what
this
Council
told
me.
You
expected
in
terms
of
a
track
record
of
enforcement,
and
in
order
to
get
three
months
of
that,
we
determined
that
six
months
of
moratorium
would
be
needed.
D
E
Will
not
happen
in
30
days.
Let
me
ask
you
this
question,
then
I'll
go
to
councilman.
Smith
is
the
searching
for
an
aho
part
of
your
time
frame.
D
D
E
D
E
J
Thank
you,
chair
just
trying
to
clarify
this,
regardless
of
whether
it's
30
days
or
six
months
was
a
date
set
as
to
when
we
are
going
to
see
that
item
to
vote
on
it.
The.
E
J
E
J
J
G
E
E
Days
addressing
the
moratorium
yeah
we're
we're
going
to
figure
that
out
Dr
Burrs.
G
E
G
G
E
E
That's
the
Democratic
process,
all
right:
where
did
we
leave
off.
E
H
All
right,
I
call
the
planning
and
zoning
committee
to
order.
Can
I
get
a
motion
on
the
minutes.
Please
thank
you.
Okay,
everybody.
You
had
a
Matrix
provided
to
you
in
your
notes
that
are
highlighted.
We
had
three
cases
that
have
opposition
and
Karen
will
present
actually
before
I
get
too
far
into
that.
Do
we
have
any
statements
from
Dan
or
anything
today?
Okay,
so
we
had
three
cases
with
opposition
that
are
highlighted
in
your
packet.
That
Karen
is
most
certainly
going
to
go
over,
but
then
we
also
have
a
note
Karen.
H
Actually
councilwoman
verse
did
you
want
a
zero
one?
Nine
nine
presentation:
you
didn't
you're
just
possibly
going
to
delay
that
one.
H
H
C
H
Yeah,
so
does
anyone
have
any
other
case
that
you'd
like
to
see
a
presentation
on.
H
All
right
item
I,
please
zero:
two:
zero,
nine
Karen.
H
Okay,
that
one
is
okay,
that's
item
F,
so
I'm,
looking
at
our
highlighted,
so
we
have
some
crazy
agendas
happening
right
now,
I'm
talking
about
I'm.
Looking
at
the
document
that
you
all
were
provided,
will
you
hold
that
up
rikita
this
document?
That
is
highlighted
that
you
were
provided
in
your
packet?
That's
what
we're
using
for
our
case
numbers
the
agenda
for
next
week
the
numbers
got
bumped
because
we
had
some
items
that
were
missing
from
the
agenda,
so
it's
a
little
confusing.
H
So
I
am
looking
at
the
planning
and
zoning
committee
staff
notes
document.
So.
H
K
And
I
had
updated
the
presentation
when
I
saw
that
the
agenda
items
had
changed
so
I
will
start,
but
please
feel
free
to
correct
me
if
I'm
missing
something
we
have
12
zoning
cases,
they
all
come
with
some
form
of
approval.
Three
cases
had
opposition
one
we're
not
recover
based
on
the
chairwoman's
guidance,
the
first
case,
Spears
Avenue.
Also
I'm,
not
gonna,
go
into
great
detail.
K
It
is
foray
R1
to
rtz
zero
lot
line
the
person
attends
on
building
single
family
detached
residential
units.
The
opposition
was
mostly
concerned
about
having
town
homes.
They
saw
that
sign
that
said,
rtz
residential
townhouse,
Sierra
lot
line
so
I
think
the
opposition
there
was
not
opposition
once
they're
aware,
is
single-family
detached,
but
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up
as
someone
did
come
and
speak
at
Planning
Commission.
But
in
this
case
that
applicant
is
essentially
rezoning
to
be
able
to
subdivide
that
lot
into
two
lots.
K
So
New
Lots
created
would
be
about
five
to
six
thousand
square
feet
and
it
had
support
from
both
staff
and
Planning
Commission,
with
a
condition
to
single
family
detached
only,
and
that
was
conveyed
to
the
person
there.
In
opposition,
the
next
case
is
H
again
I'm
referring
to
the
gender
I,
think
it's
a
130,
the
latest
one
I
saw
and
I
apologize,
so
I'll
go
by
case
number.
This
is
the
one
we're
skipping
based
on
the
guidance
okay
case,
2022
213,
it's
on
Shallowford
Road.
K
This
was
the
last
of
the
cases
that
had
people
in
opposition
at
Planning
Commission.
This
is
a
request
to
rezone
from
R1
to
R4
special
Zone
7725
Shallowford
Road.
The
site
is
just
west
of
Grace
Baptist
Church
on
Shallowford
Road,
which
is
at
the
intersection
of
Jenkins.
In
Shallowford.
There
was
a
church
previously
on
the
site
that
I
believe
was
impacted
heavily
by
the
tornado
in
a
sense
that
building
has
since
been
removed.
Their
Quest
is
rezoned
from
our
R1
to
R4
to
develop
five
20
unit
apartment
buildings
and
accessory
apartment
type
uses.
K
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
mix
of
zoning
in
the
area
and
the
site
is
zoned
R1
shown
in
the
yellow
the
adjacent
campus
to
the
east,
which
is
that
larger
property
at
the
Northwest
intersex
intersection
of
Jenkins
and
Shallowford
is
the
Grace
Baptist
site.
There
is
a
R4
Zone
abetting
the
site
to
the
West,
with
a
senior
living
facility
in
place
on
that
the
site's
less
than
five
acres,
so
those
proposed
100
units
accounts
for
a
density
of
20
dwelling
units.
An
acre.
The
site
is
located
in
the
East.
K
The
area
11
East
Brainerd
plan,
which
which
identifies
the
site
as
a
campus
Place
type,
that
use
is
I,
mean
primarily
includes
uses
like
institutions,
offices,
research,
research
facilities,
schools,
medical
uses,
clubs,
house,
meeting,
Halls
kind
of
a
mix
of
institutional
uses,
but
also
a
multi-family
living
that
place
type
for
this
site.
For
the
the
plan
was
developed
when
that
church
was
still
in
place
as
part
of
a
larger
kind
of
Campus
designation
with
Grace
Baptist
to
the
east.
K
Excuse
me.
The
development
form
is
a
mix
of
suburban
single-family,
residential
lots,
multi-family
residential
developments,
Assisted
Living
development
and
that
larger
Church
campus.
The
proposed
development
of
multi-family
Apartments
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
development
form
and
staff
found
that
it
can
be
compatible,
but
that
the
R3
Zone
would
be
a
better
fit
to
limit
commercial
uses
along
Shallowford
Road
right
now,
Shallowford
Road,
the
northern
portion
of
Shallowford
Road
until
you
get
to
the
Jenkins
intersection,
there's
not
any
commercial,
showing
kind
of
in
this
section.
K
The
R4
Zone
that
was
requested
does
have
more
commercial
uses,
so
staff
was
recommending
denying
the
R4,
but
approving
the
R3
Zone.
The
there
was
opposition
present.
This
had
two
hearings
at
Planning
Commission.
If
I'm
remembering
correctly
density,
then
amount
of
density
that
20
units,
an
acre,
was
a
concern.
I'm
just
concerned
about
just
more
Apartments
along
this
Corridor
and
flooding
storm
water
issues
were
discussed.
K
Planning
Commission
found
that
the
multi-family
development
was
compatible
with
the
plan
adjacent
land
uses
and
development
form,
but
that
the
R3
residential
Zone
would
be.
It
was
the
better
tool.
So
this
does
come
with
a
recommendation
to
approve
the
R3
residential
zone
for
this
site
to
enable
apartment
developments,
and
it
has
no
conditions.
K
I
I
had
my
life
pushed
for
case
zero.
Two
one:
zero
Karen,
the
president
of
Hill
City
neighborhood
association,
sent
a
letter
to
RPA,
registering
an
opposition
to
this
case
and
I.
Don't
know:
Emily
wood
received
well
I.
Guess
she
received
it.
She
responded
back
to
Grant,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
letter
was
on
record
when
you
stated
that
the
gentleman
had
a
opposition
to
the
town
homes
and
then
he
found
out
you
know,
went
in
town.
There
is
still
there
is
opposition
from
the
Hill
City
neighborhood
association,
okay,.
K
Okay,
thank
you.
I'll
update
our
records
and
have
that
provided
should
this
come
up
again
next
week.
H
I
Yeah
this
is,
this
is
yeah
806
Spears.
K
I
But
I
just
wanted
the
council
to
know
that
that
the
Hill
City
neighborhood
association
did
hear
this
case
taken,
took
a
vote
on
it
and
and
were
in
opposition.
They
have
stood
firm
on
keeping
that
area
R1,
even
though
they
really
have
no
opposition
to
the
smaller
lot
sizes
and
I
had
tried
to
address
that
as
well,
but
I
guess
we'll
just
wait
till
the
new
zoning
codes
come
in
fake
and
we'll
just
continue
to
deny
all
these
others
on
your
request.
Thank.
E
You,
madam
chair
Karen,
I,
really
don't
know
where
to
start
on
this
one.
When
the
area
11
plan
was
being
constructed.
C
K
The
what
the
the
citizens
would
show
stakeholders
in
the
process
would
have
seen
for
the
plan
would
have
been
campus.
They.
A
K
Have
seen
a
campus,
they
would
understand,
was
kind
of
a
mix
of
institutional
churches,
School
type
uses,
and
they
would
have
seen
that
kind
of
as
a
a
little
center
with
Grace
Baptist
property.
Okay,.
E
Right
so
where
we're
at
with
this
was
I,
tended
the
community
meetings
and
from
day
one
residents
were
really
not
against
the
R3.
We
think
I
think
they
they
felt
like
that
was
an
okay
use,
but
where
the
conversation
tended
to
land
was
some
of
the
property
that's
adjacent
to
it.
E
Moving
down
at
some
point,
even
as
little
as
like
2013
14
15
range
was
denied
by
RPA
for
density,
less
than
what
was
recommended
for
this,
so,
for
example,
this
is
being
if
you
look
at
the
site,
but
you
do
not
have
a
site
plan
in
this
slideshow.
Do
you
I?
E
Should
five
buildings
20
units
per
acre,
which
is
which
was
denied
by
RPA
and
settled
on,
like,
for
example
morning,
Point
next
door
to
it
was
denied
and
settled
on
8.3
Villages
of
Ashwood,
five
Ashwood
Square
10,
Ashford,
Villa,
nine
and
then
from
what
I
have
been
able
to
on
Earth
and
I
need
to
verify
a
little
bit
of
this
is
some
new
proposals
with
8.7
and
11,
not
nearby
were
actually
denied.
E
So
at
that
meeting,
20
units
per
acre
was
the
big
con
contentious
point.
So
we
worked
with
the
representative,
which
I
need
to
note
is
not
the
name
listed
here
which
is
paresh
Patel
I've,
never
spoken
to
paresh
Patel,
the
community's
never
met
Mr
Patel.
We
were
represented
by
an
Architecture
Firm
and
those
Communications
kind
of
dried
up.
E
Last
time,
I
asked
a
question
was
November
22nd
regarding
density,
where
we
think
it
should
be
in
line
and
congruent
with,
what's
been
happening
along
that
corridor
and
I'm,
not
comfortable
I'm,
going
to
be
completely
honest,
I'm
not
comfortable
with
the
lack
of
conditions
I
mean
when
we
look
at
I
pulled
the
case
from
next
door
and
at
that
time,
RPA
put
in
all
kinds
of
20-foot
landscape,
buffers
type
c
landscape,
buffers
to
against
another
property,
next
door
to
it
and
our
rtz
and
there
are
no
conditions.
E
So
we
have
some
serious
concerns
about
this
massive
amount
of
density
and,
although
I
understand
density
and
thank
you
for
whoever
said
District
4
in
our
strategic
planning
session,
we
are
no
strangers
to
density.
We
have
our
share.
We
lead
the
way
in
density
all
around
our
district.
E
We
are
very
welcoming
to
density
what
what
my
community
is
asking-
and
this
is
the
community
of
Drake
Forest,
a
community
of
of
residents,
even
in
the
Villas
which
is
down
the
street
is
8.3,
is
that
20
units
per
acre
is
just
is
a
really
bad
fit
and
I'm
not
comfortable
with
even
having
this
move
forward
onto
the
agenda
because
of
the
lack
of
communication.
I
have
never
again
even
spoken
to
the
applicant,
and
that's
very
concerning
to
me
and
a
recent
event.
E
Just
a
few
days
ago,
a
real
estate
sign
has
gone
up
in
front
of
the
property
which
perplexes
me
additionally,
and
the
agent
has
responded
that
they
are
going
for
Town
Homes
offices
and
Condominiums,
which
is
also
perplexing
to
me
because
and
then
they're
actually
putting
in
a
price
range,
which
is
a
for
sale
item
and
not
the
apartments
that
was
proposed.
So
I
really
am
not
comfortable.
The
community
is
certainly
not
comfortable
and
I'm
going
to
request
this
item
not
even
be
placed
on
the
agenda
until
we
could
do
further
research.
K
K
K
Zone
from
R1
to
R2
to
develop
a
two
unit
townhouse
it's
on
Lightfoot,
Mill
Road,
this
property,
zoned,
R1
you'll,
do
c
and
R2
strip
across
Lightfoot
Mill,
which
does
allow
town
homes
and
it's
kind
of
hard
to
see
on
this
zoning
map.
But
there
is
manufacturing
zone
property
backing
up
to
that
R2
strip,
so
the
applicants
requesting
just
to
develop
two
units
on
the
site,
so
the
density
is
about
five
units,
an
acre.
K
The
Highway
58
plan,
which
is
a
2002
document,
so
quite
aged
at
this
point-
recommends
low
density
residential
uses
for
these
properties,
including
this,
this
site,
which
is
intended
for
detached
single
family
dwellings.
Typically
with
a
residential
density
of
one
to
four
dwelling
units
in
acre,
there
are
primarily
single-family
detached
residential
uses
in
the
area,
the
R2
properties
across
the
street.
Those
that,
though
zoned
R2,
are
a
single
family
residential
detached
uses.
Staff
noted
that
Townhomes
can
be
compatible
if
the
density
is
similar.
There's
adequate
landscape,
buffering
or
massing
of
the
buildings
may
be
limited.
K
However,
noted
there
are
no
Town
Homes
located
in
the
vicinity
of
the
area.
So
looking
at
light
familiar,
you
kind
of
see
that
development
pattern
in
a
single
family,
a
budding
Lightfoot
Mill
and
then
those
large
industrial
use
is
just
to
the
east
of
Lightfoot
Mill.
K
So
staff
had
found
that
the
request
does
not
comply
with
the
recommendations
of
the
currently
adopted
plan
and
that
zone
would
introduce
much
smaller
lot
sizes
and
higher
density
into
the
predominantly
single-family
neighborhood,
but
noted
that
adus
might
be
a
possibility
and
that
this
request
could
be
reconsidered.
Maybe
in
the
future,
as
we
have
more
updated
land
use,
there
was
no
opposition
at
Planning,
Commission
and
Planning
Commission
found.
K
The
request
is
compatible
with
the
plan,
adjacent
land
uses
and
development
form
and
as
it
has
a
recommendation
to
approve
foreign,
so
don't
think
that
staff
is
not
opposed,
certainly
to
a
two
unit
town
home.
Here
there
is
R2
zoning
across
the
street.
It
would
just
be
setting
a
new
is
setting
a
precedent
and
in
this
area
and
the
plan
just
doesn't
provide
guidance
for
that.
B
Karen
I
guess
is
that
the
same
land
that
was
property
that
was
denied
I,
think
two
or
three
years
ago.
K
We
did
there
was
this
I
think
these
few
properties,
and
then
it
went
up
Bird
Avenue,
so
there
might
have
been
a
combination
of
four
or
five
properties
at
that
time,
and
the
applicant
has
pulled
out
this
one
to
develop
at
this
point.
K
So
I
think
if
I'm,
remembering
back
correctly,
Bird
Avenue
is
R1
and
single
family
has
a
pretty
set
pattern.
Single
family,
detached
and
I.
Think
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
recommended
denial.
I,
don't
know
that
it
got
to
council,
but
yes,
this
is
that
area
and
I
believe
this
is
one
of
those
properties.
Okay,
thanks
and
this
this
one
by
itself,
though,
is
is
adjacent
to
the
R2
Zone,
unlike
the
case
previously,
which
had
a
combination
of
properties.
C
H
H
G
Been
a
challenging
day,
I
know
I'm,
sorry,
so
Phil
back
to
you
again.
So
Mr
is
Mr
Emery
here
today
by
any
chance.
A
A
A
H
K
Okay,
this
case
is
in
South
Broad,
it's
a
little
confusing
as
it's
rezoning
from
ugc
Urban,
General
commercial,
with
conditions
to
ugc,
so
I'm
gonna
I'm
spending
a
little
time
talking
about
why
that
is
happening.
K
So
if
you
will
bear
with
me
we'll
explain
this:
the
UTC
Zone
was
amended,
so
it's
going
from
old
ugc
to
near
ugc
is
essentially
what's
happening,
so
the
rezoning
is
1.2
Acres
with
a
proposed
63
units,
as
mentioned
the
site's
already
Zone
ugc
with
conditions
and
the
property
of
the
Southwest
and
North
is
zoned
ugc.
Also,
the
brown
zoning
to
the
right
is
the
R3
multi-family
Zone.
K
So
just
a
reminder.
Earlier
this
year
the
ugc
Zone
was
amended
in
part.
This
was
to
address
the
deviation
situation
at
Planning
Commission.
We
removed
that
finding
it
wasn't
compliant
with
state
law.
So
excuse
me
so
this
is
the
current
language
of
the
ugc
and
you'll
note
number
three
building
mass:
that
there
is
no
maximum
building
Mass
requirements
for
properties
rezoned
to
ugc
after
August
30th
2022,
which
was
the
effective
date
of
that
zoning
ordinance
Amendment.
K
So,
prior
to
this,
unless
had
the
Planning
Commission
had
granted
a
deviation,
there
was
a
12
000
square
foot
maximum.
So
the
property
in
question
had
that
12
000
square
foot
maximum.
They
would
like
to
have
a
greater
building
footprint
to
that,
so
they
are
now
rezoning
to
ugc
to
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
the
building
Mass,
which
says:
there's
no
maximum
Building
height
requirement
no
maximum
building
Mass
requirement.
There
is
still
a
maximum
Building
height
of
five
stores,
although
the
applicants
only
proposing
three
stories.
K
So
this
was
the
workaround
we
determined
at
the
time-
and
we
did
this
because
Council
had
acted
on
several
Urban
General
commercial
zonings
over
time,
and
there
was
probably
a
really
good
reason
why
twelve
thousand
square
foot
or
less
was
part
of
that
rezoning.
So,
in
order
for
anything
to
be
larger,
it
was
determined
it
would
come
back
through
the
council
process
to
determine
if
that
was
appropriate,
because
we
do
have
quite
a
bit
of
ugc
zoning
now.
K
So
the
the
prior
case
in
this
was
2021,
so
they
were
before
that
kind
of
the
cut
off
and
I
was
just
showing
you.
The
current
case,
boundary
is
the
bottom
property.
The
prior
case
contains
much
of
that
that
2021
case
and
I'll
note
that
it
was
limited
to
residential
uses,
only
a
maximum
Building
height
of
three
stories.
So
when
Council
acted
on
much
of
the
ugc
Zoning
for
this
side,
it
was
conditioned
residential
use
as
a
maximum
Building
height.
K
So
this
is
excuse
me.
The
2018,
South,
Broad
District
study
recommends
mixed
housing,
medium
intensity
and
mixed
housing
high
intensity
for
the
site.
It's
kind
of
a
mix
splitting
through
the
middle,
but
generally
it's
described
as
having
a
mixture
of
building
types
and
allowing
buildings
up
to
three
stories
in
height,
really
kind
of
stresses
that
Urban
Development,
the
surrounding
development
form
is
a
mix
of
large
commercial
developments,
Urban
single
family
dwellings
and
institutional
Arts
with
Associated
parking.
K
There
are
multiple
neighborhood
ugc,
Zone
Parcels
in
the
area,
with
conditions
related
to
a
variety
of
residential
and
building
Heights
staff
did
recommend
adding
conditions
to
ensure
that
some
similar
development
form
to
some
of
the
development.
The
surrounding
area
and
just
noted
that
the
ugc
Zone
has
some
form
related
development
standards
which
help
implement
the
plan.
Recommendation
there
was
not
opposition
at
PC,
both
staff
and
PC
found.
F
Thank
you
so
much
Karen
for
this
one
I
would
like
it
removed
from
my
agenda
until
we're
able
to
talk
to
the
developer.
Initially,
when
this
was
approved,
there
were
a
certain
amount
of
units.
There
was
a
community
meeting,
an
agreement
with
the
Hamlet
Chapel
Church.
In
addition
to
there
was
an
Alleyway
abandonment,
not
a
company,
but
that
went
along
with
the
rezoning
and
all
of
that
was
based
on
the
agreement
between
the
developer
and
the
community
and
so
to
come
back
now.
F
This
new
thing
and
I
haven't
been
able
to
get
a
meeting
scheduled
with
the
developer.
I
hadn't
got
a
response
back
yet,
okay
and
and
the
community
is
willing
to
meet
they.
We
set
a
date
and
then
we're
not
able
to
get
the
developer
to
respond
to
that
date.
So
with
that,
until
we're
able
to
get
those
issues
rectified,
especially
with
I
believe
it's
doubled
in
units
almost
I
think
the
original
units
were
like
30
or
so,
and.
F
I
was
up
to
63
in
addition
to
the
reason
why
I
was
rezoned,
all
that
was
agreed
to
in
the
first
place
was
because
of
the
conditions
that
were
placed
down
so
now
to
come
back.
That
creates
a
huge
level
of
distrust
in
the
community
because
they
agreed
to
something
and
now
someone
is
coming
back
and
saying:
oh,
that's
not
gonna
work.
Let's
do
this!
Well!
No!
No!
F
K
F
F
K
Five
and
I
do
have
presentation
loaded
for
that.
If
you
needed
that.
G
Okay,
so
let
me
make
sure
I've
got
this
correct.
It's
information
correct
in
Phil,
a
lot
of
so
for
council
certification.
A
lot
of
emails
have
gone
back
and
forth
relative
to
law.
So
let
me
make
sure
I've
got
this
correct.
On
the
record,
there
was
a
place
called
the
Palm
that
was
before
we
had
created
new
law
relative
to
nightclubs,
that's
correct,
all
right,
and
then
we
created
a
law
that
these
places
had
to
be
750
feet
from
residential
areas
with.
K
That's
correct
and
I
didn't
have
I,
don't
have
my
notes
in
front
of
me,
but
I
believe
there
was
just
a
name
change
and
the
name
change
did
not
trigger
a
need
for
a
special
permit.
It's.
G
So
then
this
Place
applies
and
it's
near
the
old
it's
underneath
the
the
old
Palms
bar
Watson
right
and
so
now,
if
we
do
a
special
exceptions
for
them,
we're
obviating
our
own
law,
except
that
the
law
says.
If
counsel
wants
to,
we
can
we
can
lower
the
750.
in
this
case,
we'd
be
lowering
it
to
200
and
something
feet
right.
A
A
Well,
it's
at
least
establishing
the
I
guess.
The
distance
requirement
here
is
acceptable.
The
the
council
can
impose
whatever
conditions
on
the
special
exceptions
permit
that
they
feel
are
necessary
to
prevent
noise
or
other
nuisance
issues
to
adjoining
Residential,
Properties
and
I
believe
that
Authority
is
within
the
code.
G
And
and
I
believe
in
your
email,
you
said
to
me
that,
but
we
better
have
backup,
complaints
and
stuff
and
I'm
not
sure
how
we
can
have
complaints
and
stuff
if
it
hasn't
existed.
So
all
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
I'm
fine
with
the
recommendation
I'm
putting
all
this
on
record,
so
I
think
some
of
my
colleagues
may
be
challenged
as
a
result
of
this
in
their
own
districts.
G
G
G
This
one
isn't
tough,
because
it's
underneath
an
already
existing
bar
I,
don't
have
any
problem
with
it,
but
I'm
thinking
about
Brainerd,
Road
and
I'm
thinking
about
East,
Brainerd,
Road
and
I'm
thinking
about
Hicks
and
Pike,
and
just
thinking
about
places
that
we
may
want
to
do
some
thinking
about,
but
I
I
I'm
going
to
move
to
approve,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
y'all
aware
of
this,
because
I've
had
some
serious
thoughts
about
that.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
K
May
I
address
the
perhaps
the
precedent
setting,
because
that
was
something
that's
come
up
in
there
we
did
look
at.
There
are
two
other
cases.
The
councils
approved
for
a
special
exception
permit,
similar
to
this,
where
there
were
properties
within
that
750
foot
buffer.
So
there
was
other
action
where
they
are
I
just
pulled
them
and
looked
at
them
and
one
of
them
I
think
was
61
feet.
I
can
pull
my
email
and
take
a
look
at
that,
but
I
don't
have
not
remembering
the
location.
K
I
just
was
looking
for
the
his
Council
approved
a
permit
where
there
was
a
reduction
in
the
buffer,
and
there
were
at
least
two
examples
and
I
didn't
look
further
than
that,
and
the
second
I'll
note
that
there
is
an
adjacent
residential,
Zone,
260
feet
or
five
feet
away,
but
there's
it
is
vacant
and
staff
went
out
there
a
couple
weeks
ago
to
double
check
it
is
vacant,
is
completely
surrounded
by
commercial
zoning
and
Commercial
uses,
so
I
think
staff
might
have
looked
at
that
differently.
K
G
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
was
wondering
if
we
could
go
back
to
M
on
the
planning
on
the
phone
for
district
eight.
What's
the
case,
number
2022
zero,
two
three
six.
C
First
of
all,
is
there
anyone
here
anyone
with
the
developer?
That's
here!
H
C
H
Right
all
right:
okay,
we
have
covered
all
of
our
topics
for
today
in
a
somewhat
bumpy
fashion.
Thank
you
for
your
grace.
Council
Karen
I
appreciate
your
help
with
all
of
this
I
see
no
other
lights,
so
I
will
adjourn
us
to
five.