Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables rezoning request for 2659 Glass Street after residents oppose commercial conversion
Summary
The City Council deferred a vote on a proposal to rezone 2659 Glass Street from residential to transitional mixed-use after neighbors raised concerns and the applicant rejected proposed conditions; the item was tabled to March 4.
The Chattanooga City Council on Jan. 28 tabled a rezoning request for 2659 Glass Street after extended public testimony and disagreement over conditions proposed by council members.
The request, filed as case 2024-0192, sought to rezone the vacant lot at 2659 Glass Street from RN15 (residential neighborhood) to CTMU (transitional mixed-use commercial). Karen, a staff member from the Regional Planning Agency (RPA), told the council the site sits at a major intersection on Glass Street but is surrounded primarily by single-family homes and that staff recommended denial because the proposal was “too distant from the rest of the commercial corridor” and would introduce a nonresidential use into a primarily residential area.
Applicant Edward Henley argued the site is a “fantastic opportunity” to bring commercial activity, housing variety and investment to the Glass Street corridor and said the planning commission had recommended approval. Developer Michael Kenner said his financing is local and that a small, three-story structure with about 700 square feet of ground-floor retail is intended to help revitalize the corridor.
Neighbors who spoke opposed the rezoning. Lakisha Kennimore, who said she lives next door at 2657 Glass Street, said she supported new housing but worried that commercial uses would increase crime, traffic and parking pressures and affect children’s safety. Willette Sexton, who lives on Glass Street, expressed similar concerns about crime, trash and heavy traffic. Dr. Evelina Holmes cited Plan Chattanooga and large community engagement that, she said, designates the site as residential.
Councilwoman Coonrod proposed a lengthy set of conditions intended to limit the types of businesses and hours of operation (including proposed hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., bans on animal-care facilities, day care centers, alcohol sales, mobile vendors, outdoor amplification, vehicle repair, lottery and certain adult-oriented retail). City attorney Mr. Turner read back a longer list during the meeting; the applicant indicated he would not accept the conditions.
Because the applicant declined the proposed restrictions, the council moved to table the item. The motion to table carried; the council recorded that the item is tabled and may be brought up off the table at a later date (the council indicated March 4 as an opportunity to revisit the matter).
Why it matters: The decision pauses a proposal that residents say could change the character of a largely residential block on a major corridor. Supporters say small-scale commercial development at this corner could catalyze broader corridor investment; opponents say the particular parcel is too small and too close to residences to host the commercial uses being discussed.
What’s next: The council tabled the item for future consideration; Councilwoman Coonrod may reintroduce the item with clarified conditions or the applicant may return with revisions at the March 4 meeting.
