Clarksville council rejects Manning Heights PUD; neighbors cite traffic, drainage and density concerns

The Clarksville City Council on March 6 declined to approve first reading of Ordinance 52, a planned unit development (PUD) proposed for Manning Heights at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Cumberland Drive, after a public hearing and debate that included residents, developers and economic-development representatives.

Bryce Powers, representing the applicant PB and J, told the council the PUD would bring “much needed affordable housing in the downtown area” and help revitalize the Riverside corridor. He said the project had been reviewed by the street department and a traffic study “clearly showed” no adverse traffic impact, and that the site sits inside an opportunity zone, which the developer described as a private tax-incentive tool requiring a 10-year hold. “We just simply ask you to make this decision based on facts,” Powers said.

The proposal drew intense opposition at the public hearing from neighbors and residents who said the proposed 72-unit development would worsen traffic, drainage and safety on narrow local streets. Charlotte Nelms, who identified herself as a Manning Heights resident, said the parcel’s steep topography and limited road width make additional traffic and construction unsafe, and warned of runoff into nearby Riverside, Edge Hill and the Cumberland River. “We are not opposed to all future development on that site … What we are adamantly opposed is the extreme density on a site that does not have adequate infrastructure support,” Nelms said.

Janet Wilson, speaking for the Clarksville-Montgomery County Economic Development Council, urged approval and said the project could increase projected tax revenue “roughly from $2,700 to approximately $180,000 per year” and would support downtown businesses by adding rooftops near Liberty Park. She and the applicant also noted the developer would still need right-of-way approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and that passage by the council would be only one step in a longer permitting process.

Council discussion highlighted competing priorities. Councilman Streetman reiterated staff and Regional Planning Commission recommendations in favor of the PUD and described the proposal as an infill opportunity for Riverside Drive. Council members who opposed the measure said resident concerns about Manning Heights’ 11‑foot sections of road width, stormwater capacity and the effect on an established neighborhood outweighed the development arguments.

Councilman Marquis presented data during debate showing parts of the city are classified as “food deserts” under USDA definitions and cited a city housing study the council received in October that estimated a 96.3% occupancy rate in multifamily housing and a projected need of 6,598 units citywide from 2024 to 2029; he said those figures supported additional housing in the city but not necessarily at this location. Other council members said the neighborhood character and safety concerns were determinative for them.

After debate the council voted to end discussion and then on the ordinance itself. The clerk recorded the final tally on Ordinance 52 as 4 yes, 8 no; the motion failed on first reading.

Votes at a glance (zoning and related items on March 6 council agenda): - Ordinance 52 (PB and J, Manning Heights PUD, R-1 to PUD) — First reading failed, 4 yes, 8 no. - Ordinance 57 (Rita Home Builders, Airport Road frontage, R-4 to R-2A) — Passed first reading, 11 yes, 1 no. - Ordinance 58 (Infinity Investment LLC, Hillsborough/Binks parcel, R-1 to R-6) — Motion passed to refer back to the Regional Planning Commission for reconsideration as R-2A, vote 11 yes, 1 no. - Ordinance 59 (Mike Greenfield, Ashland City Road/Chesterfield Drive, C-5/R-4 to M-1) — Passed first reading unanimously, 12 yes, 0 no. - Ordinance 60 (Hunter Winn, Summerfield/Barbee/Silver Star area, R-1A to R-2A) — Failed for lack of majority on first reading, 6 yes, 6 no. - Ordinance 61 (RL Home LLC, Bridal Springs/Center Road, RM-1 to R-4) — Passed first reading, 10 yes, 2 no.

Why it matters: The Manning Heights vote is an example of tensions the council faces between encouraging infill housing and protecting existing neighborhood conditions. Supporters framed the project as an economic catalyst and infill development that would use existing infrastructure; opponents focused on narrow local roads, stormwater/runoff risk, neighborhood character and perceived inadequate mitigation measures.

What’s next: Because Ordinance 52 failed at first reading, the applicant would need to withdraw, revise or refile the proposal if it seeks future council consideration. The applicant and other pending zoning matters still require subsequent approvals noted in testimony, including Regional Planning Commission review and any TDOT right-of-way actions mentioned by the developer. No new vote date for this site was set during the March 6 session.

Sources and attribution: Quotes and assertions in this article come from the March 6, 2025 Clarksville City Council public hearing record. Direct attributions are to Bryce Powers (representative, PB and J), Janet Wilson (representative, Clarksville-Montgomery County Economic Development Council), Charlotte Nelms (Manning Heights resident), Jennifer Ware (resident who spoke at the hearing), and councilmembers who spoke during debate including Councilman Streetman, Councilman Marquis, Councilman Chandler, Councilman Holloman, Councilman Haywood, Councilman Peters, Councilman Brown and Councilman Zachariah.