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

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.