Planning staff presented a series of rezoning cases before the Clarksville City Council, and council members probed infrastructure, traffic and school-capacity implications for each proposal. The items came from Planning Commission recommendations and were discussed across several wards.

Planning staff (identified in the transcript as "Mister Tindle") described Ordinance 42 (Planning Commission case z462024), an application by Judy Clayton with agent Mark Holloman to rezone about 2.03 acres on Pea Ridge Road in Ward 9 from R-1 to C-5 to align with surrounding C-5 zoning. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval but said a traffic assessment and potential street improvements would be required before development proceeds. "A traffic assessment was required prior to approval by the street department," staff told council.

On Kelly Lane (Ordinance 44, case z472024), staff recommended approval to rezone a 0.34-acre parcel to R-6 to accommodate 2–3 single-family lots; the street department noted sidewalks would be required under R-6 and no resident opposition had been received. Councilmembers asked whether sidewalks and fire access were feasible on the narrow roadway; staff said the lot depth allows driveway access and the Fire Department submitted no objections.

Ordinance 45 (case z482024) involved a 0.51-acre vacant mobile-home lot on Calvert Drive in Ward 3 where the applicant requested R-6. Staff recommended disapproval, saying the request conflicts with the comprehensive plan's suburban‑neighborhood designation and risks creating a precedent for additional density without improved connectivity; the Planning Commission likewise recommended disapproval. Council members raised concerns about steep grade and runoff on the lot.

The council reviewed Ordinance 46 (case z492024) in New Providence (Ward 4), where staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval to extend multifamily zoning for workforce housing despite some conflict with the future‑land‑use map. On Peachers Mill Road (Ordinance 47, case z502024), staff described a previously approved 155‑unit multifamily plan and an applicant proposal to rezone for roughly 67 single‑family R‑6 lots; staff recommended disapproval citing connectivity and comp‑plan consistency while the Planning Commission favored approval as a transitional fit with surrounding housing.

A larger rezoning (Ordinance 48, case z512024) covered nearly 25 acres adjacent to Bell Road in the Saint Bethlehem planning area. Staff recommended approval for a continuation of single‑family residential development, but flagged a TVA easement that would reduce developable acreage, potential lift‑station upgrades for utilities, and required roadway widening and sidewalk installations. Staff estimated about 112 units historically but cautioned that figure may be high due to easements and drainage constraints.

Across the cases, the council repeatedly focused on specific implementation items: traffic assessments and potential signal activation at the Pea Ridge intersection; sidewalk requirements and curb grading for infill lots; school capacity notes provided by the district for affected elementary, middle and high schools; TVA easement surveys and drainage easement retention; and the need for final engineering and site plans before any development could proceed. Where staff recommended disapproval it cited inconsistency with the adopted comprehensive plan; where staff recommended approval it cited compatibility with recent residential investment and neighborhood transitions.

Council members asked staff for follow‑up materials (site plans, prior approvals and preliminary access sketches) and for updates from the street department and planning consultants as projects advance. No final roll‑call outcomes or formal votes are recorded in the transcript for these items; the council discussion focused on clarifying conditions and next procedural steps.