[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6358692,"mediaKeyId","2211452-8c162e9ffa757d3a89a2d987d2087104","parentId",2211452,"title","Council debate over eliminating city DEI position draws sharp pushback; vote set for next meeting","audioSeconds",1682,"startMs",4378000,"endMs",6060000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2211452-8c162e9ffa757d3a89a2d987d2087104&start=4378&end=6060","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2211452-8c162e9ffa757d3a89a2d987d2087104/thumbnail_4378000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6358692/Clarksville/Montgomery-County/Tennessee/Council-debate-over-eliminating-city-DEI-position-draws-sharp-pushback-vote-set-for-next-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358692-58c684027b00187a6e11fc72be56b360/orig.mp4?Expires=1775173753&Signature=EtKUmIHR9xETdMK9crcYPGTnNHIKb~94piAMyrQN4ij9ZY---v5MZ4kL-vX2sebb78SqdwqULJA8q-O-aoknce~bF4NsfGv4gVllge4txRCz2YH-2-PU-jtzz7hAtWnGYA7cvxnl30H9mGXrE8rhvGMh1fkt2z7~pwoyHIqAKBzqlMfIGVNIw0dWb5ze-2Kc~1dSaMuaBk8zA1Wv44yYR5~Q0dNBf1Cq-8n5oG-wXncvQziiJeot4qcofCZuAgwYclQSQYvv55UkkHPeQcAEO-QOIWVer4M4EmV6scTWubSfkDmUR~HKNRMFWbnLHrTqxgsPHx6-HhhJCXZ2TT8HBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Clarksville, TN","date","2025-01-31T12:33:34Z","article","Councilman Holloman introduced Resolution 37 (2024/25) seeking elimination of the city’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) position during the Jan. 30 meeting. The measure drew sustained debate from council members, multiple department leaders as described in the meeting, and two public speakers who urged the council either to censure the sponsor or to respond with compassion.

Holloman said the resolution reflected concerns he and others have raised about DEI positions nationally and locally. ‘‘This should be discussed,’’ he told colleagues, arguing that government should reconsider DEI roles. Several colleagues pushed back. Council members said the title and scope of the position have changed under the current administration and that the role now focuses on human‑resources learning and development, compliance and employee retention rather than a standalone DEI agenda.

Multiple council members urged colleagues to consult department heads and the city’s HR director before making a personnel decision. Council member comments and questions cited the HR director’s reclassification of duties and presented a breakdown of how much of the current job involves organizational development, training, compliance, and a small DEI component. Council members said much of the role covers Title VI and Title VII compliance, EEOC investigations and required trainings — federal obligations that support grant eligibility and legal compliance.

Public speakers also addressed the chamber. Karen Reynolds, who identified herself during public comment, urged the council to act: ‘‘Silence is compliance,’’ she said, and called for a formal censure of Councilman Holloman and for removing his access to city resources she said were being used to recruit for an outside group. Another speaker, Wendy Foster, urged compassion and warned against language that threatens people: ‘‘If you wanna protect your community, that includes everyone. We cannot exclude people. We have to bring everyone in, and we want to be safe.’’

Council members who spoke against the resolution said it was poorly researched and risked harming the city’s ability to meet federal compliance obligations and to manage employee training and retention. Council members cited conversations with department heads who said they do not hire based on protected characteristics, but that broader outreach and training help expand applicant pools and preserve compliance. Several members said they would vote no on the measure when it comes up for a formal vote next week.

Holloman responded to criticism by saying some of his communications — including an initiative called Clarksville Mutual Protectors (CMP) — focus on community emergency preparedness and agricultural resilience, and that some wording had been metaphorical. He did not withdraw the resolution at the Jan. 30 meeting. No formal vote was taken; council members and staff said the resolution will be on the next meeting’s agenda.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Executive Session - January 30, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Councilman Holloman introduced Resolution 37 (2024/25) seeking elimination of the city’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) position during the Jan. 30 meeting.","taxTitle","Clarksville, Montgomery County, Tennessee","taxId",4858,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6358694,"Planning staff recommends rezoning 1.11‑acre Lafayette/Riggins lot to enable infill homes; neighbors oppose higher density",355,40000,395000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2211452-8c162e9ffa757d3a89a2d987d2087104&start=40&end=395","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2211452-8c162e9ffa757d3a89a2d987d2087104/thumbnail_40000.jpg","/articles/6358694/Clarksville/Montgomery-County/Tennessee/Planning-staff-recommends-rezoning-111acre-LafayetteRiggins-lot-to-enable-infill-homes-neighbors-oppose-higher-density","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358694-b7f1ccfd46cf6afda1cee47966a95dbb/orig.mp4?Expires=1775173753&Signature=VpwUykDomw-h1Oj8EFzfY4fpLWMybXr5uMJG3W~FOTfixCStppG1cnGePsoZYwznlwKyS3H0PNXycUWXLYwQQtyO7rdRlnG1EiMvBHG-q61AmS9sjzMzJo~WqfH5wxH35dy3BV6R9QNibvx82fO-UCTUNREI42uVuxQj2q4JPytyJJCnSFibf9rJpgjOyS7bhYHxfvDtPAgkUApzRTe9hJcDB1akebru4x1xvl1-f5XKruHvwIszA-XMTzDYbbu7lO-1oqHt0PUYTiS-nIXtoDsFm-GC7klMAi9C0mNHn6Mnp8LMzaMTjWhCiTLNQ4OWHZ1Wu~JVlglE8hbV9iyINQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented a zone‑change request (case Z01/Z12025) from GP Contractors LLC for a 1.11‑acre parcel at the intersection of Lafayette Road and Riggins Drive during the Jan. 30 Clarksville City Council meeting. The applicant seeks to rezone the property from R‑1 (single‑family residential) to R‑2A (higher‑density single‑family residential) to demolish an existing dilapidated house and create infill lots for detached single‑family homes; planning staff recommended approval and the planning commission recommended approval.

Planning staff described the site as a long, narrow lot fronting the east side of Riggins Drive in council Ward 2, within the Lafayette/Peachers Mill planning area, with an adjoining recent annexation that brought R‑4 zoning across the street. Staff said the future land use map designates the site for suburban neighborhood and that the city’s comprehensive plan supports mild residential density increases in aging neighborhoods. Staff estimated the property could yield about four lots under typical subdivision standards and noted a zoning provision that could set a Lafayette Road setback up to 50 feet where the majority of homes on a block face exceed the standard setback.

The department of streets said primary access would be required from Riggins Drive (the minor road); staff noted the city’s access ordinance allows the developer to appeal to an access‑appeals board to seek driveway access onto Lafayette Road but said the initial requirement would be Riggins Drive access. Planning staff told council there is no gravity sewer immediately available at the site; the applicant stated during comment that sewer exists on Riggins Drive and could be extended to serve the property.

Planning documents in the council packet included a letter of opposition from a nearby resident. Councilman McLaughlin said he submitted two additional letters to the planning commission and expected adjacent property owners to speak against the rezoning at a future hearing; he said the main neighborhood concern is that R‑2A would introduce higher density than the surrounding R‑1 and R‑2 pattern and that the change could permit four houses on one lot adjacent to larger single‑lot homes.

Councilman Chandler asked planning staff to clarify the access rule and environmental review process; staff said environmental review for this case focused on wetland, floodplain and septic issues and that no adverse environmental conditions were identified. Staff also said the planning commission’s recommendation and the staff position were that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan’s goals for infill in aging neighborhoods.

There was no council vote on the rezoning on Jan. 30. Planning staff recommended approval and noted additional public comments and questions will be addressed when the item returns to the council for action.

","Planning staff presented a zone‑change request (case Z01/Z12025) from GP Contractors LLC for a 1.11‑acre parcel at the intersection of Lafayette Road and Riggins Drive during the Jan. 30 Clarksville City Council meeting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6358699,"Council hears PUD for 72‑unit Riverside apartments; final approval contingent on TDOT right‑of‑way",624,588000,1212000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2211452-8c162e9ffa757d3a89a2d987d2087104&start=588&end=1212","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2211452-8c162e9ffa757d3a89a2d987d2087104/thumbnail_588000.jpg","/articles/6358699/Clarksville/Montgomery-County/Tennessee/Council-hears-PUD-for-72unit-Riverside-apartments-final-approval-contingent-on-TDOT-rightofway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358699-2b6d471cb1eb26c07ae87169a9ccd060/orig.mp4?Expires=1775173753&Signature=lCwkbUAaAWJZPJBac4XM9pXnaUceMNQLhLRIVzZ8Nk6B-4mM4AHqpDwgYC4VRhMU9EaoyqfsK7vp6qH-HLTeC9f8p0Q1lVhMa~WkK~rEGZvO8Xe-7uZlkCl8y5vYyksVBYMuca3CdwCNfgyH7AmHD276HiADI1k9wA-pV3FuS0eJXWFj9kP3uZzZrGbtlcxd~vDvuGdUGl71ZruRa8AUcSVuLxL4UOEu-8lC83uOB04U3f9foYeCKRa7Gv6n~TZk84HaAJQWbyebJK0qQeemC26LXI~NAMp1g6MPKt~DHQYz8O9PywMG0C8El1JC0xszNB2xk2ROs4mnD8H3iVqPHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","PB and J Partnership presented a planned unit development (PUD) proposal for a 72‑unit apartment building on about 3.01 acres at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Cumberland Drive during the Clarksville City Council meeting on Jan. 30. Planning staff recommended council approval and the regional planning commission also recommended approval, but staff said the PUD cannot receive final planning commission sign‑off unless the developer acquires a strip of Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) right‑of‑way shown on the plan.

The condition matters because the developer’s site plan places a 24‑foot travel easement, parking and landscaping within TDOT’s right‑of‑way; planning staff said the developer may pursue acquisition through TDOT’s excess right‑of‑way process but that TDOT may refuse to transfer the property. Planning staff read a recommended condition that the PUD ‘‘cannot receive final approval from the planning commission until the developer owner acquires the area from TDOT needed to accommodate the 24‑foot travel easement’’ and warned there is no guarantee TDOT will agree to transfer the land.

If approved as presented, the PUD would allow about 72 residential units in a building with roughly 25 units per acre, providing a mix of one‑ and two‑bedroom units, outdoor amenities including an 800‑square‑foot pavilion, a fire pit and a fenced pet recreation area, and at least 15% open space. The applicant’s schematic shows 124 parking spaces; planning staff said the ordinance required 110 spaces for the project. Staff noted the project ‘‘comes in around 25 units per acre’’ and that a prior traffic impact study, accepted by the city street department, concluded the development would not adversely affect intersection level of service.

Council members and agency staff pressed for more detail on access, emergency response and nearby road widths. Planning staff said the project proposes a 24‑foot travel easement along the frontage, widening of Edge Hill Drive by 5 feet along the development boundary and widening of the remaining portion of Manning Heights within the right of way to about 18 feet to facilitate two‑way movement and emergency vehicle access. Fire Chief Montgomery said the revised widths—18 feet on Manning Heights and 24 feet on Edge Hill—would accommodate apparatus if implemented as proposed.

Council members representing nearby neighborhoods voiced concerns about safety, cut‑through traffic and on‑street parking on narrow adjacent streets. Councilman Holliman asked whether field checks had been made at peak hours; staff said the street department reviewed the traffic study rather than conducting independent peak‑hour counts. Council members also asked about the steep topography behind neighboring homes and whether construction would require blasting; planning staff said slopes were below a 15% threshold and that developers historically use mechanical excavation near residences and would carry insurance for any damage.

Staff said utilities had no outstanding objections, and the water system representative reported a 24‑inch ductile iron main in the corridor that the development could tie into; he estimated that any new onsite mains would likely be 6–8 inches depending on fire service needs. Planning staff also read school‑capacity responses: they said the school system provided capacities for Norman Smith Elementary, Montgomery Central Middle and Montgomery Central High School; later in the meeting staff said Montgomery Central High was at about 81% capacity with no portables. The applicant previously sought a PUD and other rezoning options in 2023 and 2005, and staff said the PUD application must return to the planning commission for final plan review within three years of approval unless the applicant requests an extension.

Planning staff emphasized that the TDOT right‑of‑way issue creates implementation risk: the ordinance condition would revert the property to its original zoning if final PUD approval is not submitted with the TDOT area acquired. There was no council vote on the PUD during the Jan. 30 meeting; council members asked for additional information and several said they expect to revisit the item at the next meeting.

Planning staff said they recommended approval with the TDOT condition and invited council members to contact staff for additional details ahead of next week’s agenda.

","PB and J Partnership presented a planned unit development (PUD) proposal for a 72‑unit apartment building on about 3.01 acres at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Cumberland Drive during the Clarksville City Council meeting on Jan. 30. Planning staff recommended council approval and the regional planning commission also recommended approval, but staff said the PUD cannot receive final planning commission sign‑off unless the developer acquires a strip of Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) right‑of‑way shown on the plan.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council debate over eliminating city DEI position draws sharp pushback; vote set for next meeting

Planning staff recommends rezoning 1.11‑acre Lafayette/Riggins lot to enable infill homes; neighbors oppose higher density

Council hears PUD for 72‑unit Riverside apartments; final approval contingent on TDOT right‑of‑way