Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clarksville council approves four rezones on first reading, splits on one residential proposal
Summary
The council approved first readings for four rezoning ordinances affecting commercial and commercial/industrial parcels, while a separate rezoning to increase residential density (Ordinance 58) failed after resident opposition and traffic concerns. Several items were pulled from the consent agenda for separate debate.
The Clarksville City Council approved first readings of multiple rezoning ordinances at its June 4 meeting, advancing plans for new commercial development while rejecting one proposal to raise residential density.
Jeff Parnell, the seller’s agent, urged approval of Ordinance 82 — a C5 highway-and-arterial commercial designation on more than four acres intended for a daycare and retail center — saying the design follows state daycare regulations and would serve nearby residents. “There are state regulations regarding the design,” Parnell said, and he described plans for roughly six or seven retail spaces and “about 150” children in the proposed daycare.
Council members split on how permissive the zoning should be. Councilman Streetman said he opposed broad C5 zoning in some cases — “I voted against it at the RPC. I am not in favor of this being a C5” — citing concerns about traffic and future uses. After debate, Ordinance 82 passed first reading 9–4. Ordinances 71, 79 and 83, which reclassify parcels along Merchants Boulevard, Craft Street and Industrial Drive for commercial uses, each passed first reading unanimously (13–0).
A separate residential rezoning, Ordinance 58 (R1 to R3 on 7M Ferry Road), drew strong resident opposition over traffic and road-grade concerns. Council members discussed whether the developer’s offer to widen nearby roads would be enforceable and whether a projected home price (cited in the discussion) would qualify as affordable housing for Clarksville households. The motion on Ordinance 58 failed 6–7.
On other items pulled from the consent agenda, Ordinance 75 (a minor change from R1 to R1A that regional planners said would not increase net lot counts) passed second reading 11–2. The council adopted the remainder of the consent agenda items by a 13–0 vote.
The council’s actions move several applicants to the next step of the municipal process but do not finalize development approvals. First readings permit further administrative or planning review and place items on a subsequent agenda for second reading or additional conditions.
The council is scheduled to revisit planning items as the related engineering, access and design details become finalized.
