Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff, planning commission back C‑5 rezoning for 2.88‑acre lot at Bellamy Lane and Warfield Boulevard
Summary
City planning staff and the planning commission recommended approval of a rezoning request to extend a C‑5 highway/arterial commercial zoning across Warfield Boulevard for a 2.88‑acre parcel at Bellamy Lane, but council members raised access and traffic concerns and no final council vote appears in the transcript.
City planning staff told the Clarksville City Council that it recommends approval of a rezoning request to change a 2.88‑acre parcel at the corner of Bellamy Lane and Warfield Boulevard from C‑2 (general commercial) to C‑5 (highway and arterial commercial).
The recommendation matters because the staff said the rezoning would extend an existing C‑5 district across Warfield Boulevard and align the parcel with the city’s adopted comprehensive plan. “This request is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan,” planning staff member Mister Bridal said. The planning commission also recommended approval.
Planning staff described the site as a vacant, slightly sloped lot with no structures that touches Warfield Boulevard but cannot be accessed directly from Warfield at that corner because of a “big ditch, detention system” and trees; staff said access would be from Bellamy Lane. “Even though it touches Warfield Boulevard, you cannot access it at that corner,” Bridal said.
Council members asked about traffic and access. Councilman McLaughlin said the council has received emails and asked whether a future site plan might be routed to connect traffic through the existing gas station and car wash to create a signalized intersection instead of adding direct access onto Bellamy Lane. Bridal replied the city has not yet seen a site plan and said shared access would require private negotiation between property owners, though “we'll support that and write whatever letters we can.”
Councilman Chandler noted the street department and building codes had offered no comments yet and said that likely reflected the absence of a site plan. Councilman Holloman pressed on scale, saying C‑5 allows broader commercial uses; Bridal replied the parcel is “just under 3 acres” and could accommodate typical commercial development such as a strip center or warehouse.
No formal motion or council vote on Z‑29 appears in the provided transcript. The record shows staff and the planning commission recommended approval but that site‑plan and access issues could produce comments during later permitting stages.
Council discussion clarified that department comments could follow once a specific development plan is submitted and that shared access would require negotiation among private property owners. The transcript does not record further action, a motion, or a recorded vote on the rezoning.
