Good morning.

Good good morning.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Today is Tuesday, December 2nd, and I would like to call our Chattanooga City Council meeting to order.

Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving and is getting in the spirit for Hanukkah and Kwanzaa and uh Christmas coming up.

It's an exciting time of year.

Um, to get us started, I'd like to invite Vice Chairwoman Noel to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation.

Pledge of allegiance to the heart of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice.

Dear Heavenly Father, as we gather in this season of reflection, gratitude, and hope, allow us to take a moment to acknowledge the blessings and the responsibilities placed before us.

May this holiday season remind us of the power of community, of neighbors looking out for one another, and of compassion offered freely.

Grant us wisdom tonight as we make decisions that shape the future of our city.

Help us leave with fairness, humility, and a spirit of unity.

Serve every resident with dignity and respect.

We ask for peace for those facing hardship.

I often say that the struggle is real.

We ask that you bless our mayor Tim Kelly, who we know the role that he traveled is not easy.

In this season, in this season, Lord of giving.

Thank you very much.

We have a special, special presentation today.

I invite Councilwoman Dotley to the podium.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the great prayer, Madam Vice Chair.

Today we have a special presentation for Mr.

Mitchell Williams.

Is he here?

I see him over there.

Hey, Mr.

Williams, thank you for trucking all down here for us.

This is one of my amazing Saint Elmo residents.

So this is his proclamation.

Chattanooga City Council Proclamation, whereas the City of Chattanooga proudly recognizes and honors citizens who have made outstanding contributions through their service, character, and example.

And whereas Mr.

Mitchell Williams, a beloved resident of the Saint Elmo community, celebrated his 100th birthday on November 5th, 2025.

And whereas Mr.

Williams answered the call to serve his country with courage and distinction as a member of the United States Armed Forces during World War II, stationed in allution is I could be saying it wrong, where his dedication and sacrifice helps secure the freedoms we cherish today.

And whereas following his military service, Mr.

Williams continues to serve his community through hard work, integrity, and kindness, spending many years employed at Food City, where his friendly spirit and familiar presence became a cherished part of the neighborhood.

And whereas to this day, Mr.

Williams continues to embody the values of perseverance, community, and joy, faithfully keeping his daily routine, greeting neighbors from his front porch, sharing stories of Chattanooga's history, and offering words of wisdom and warmth to all who pass by.

And whereas his life is a living testament to the strength of character, humility, and service that define the very best of Chattanooga citizens.

Now therefore be it be claimed, proclaimed.

And encourage all citizens to join and celebrating his remarkable life, his service to our nation, and his lasting impact on the St.

Elmo community.

Today is Mitchell Williams Day.

So y'all give him a round of applause.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all.

Thank you all so much.

He celebrated a hundred years, and that's a long time to be around.

We appreciate his service.

Mr.

Wins, would you or your family like to come and say a word?

Yes.

Look at me.

And thank you so much for indulging us, madam chair.

Of course.

Y'all okay?

Oh, okay.

That's it.

Never mind.

Well, I'm gonna take this to him and I'm good.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Council, what a joyful way to start our meeting.

Um let's get going on taking a look at today.

Oh, you know what we're gonna do?

We're gonna approve the minutes.

Absolutely.

Okay, in a second.

Second, all right, Council.

We have a motion on the floor to improve the minutes with a proper second.

I'm gonna let those minutes stand unless we have any objections.

All right.

Now let's talk about our agenda for today.

We do have some items on final reading.

Um, I intend to take those as a package, um, items uh B, C and D as a package and E and F as a package.

If you have any uh questions or concerns about that, please go ahead and hit your light.

All right, moving into first reading, we have uh wastewater items, our planning items.

If you want to talk about those, please hold your questions because we are having a planning and zoning uh meeting this afternoon.

Uh and these items I believe have been deferred, but we'll talk about that in planning and zoning.

So looking at resolutions.

Councilman Davis.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

I do have a question for economic development about the Northgate TIFF resolutions.

Good afternoon, Council Sherdown, Senior Advisor for Economic and Workforce Development here at the city.

All right.

Um, so with regard in particular to the water portion of the proposed project, what can you tell us about the funding sources and the entities who may or may not be involved?

Thank you for that question.

So the water portion that we're discussing is related to the proposed Northgate Mall Hickson Area Infrastructure Project.

That project consists of both um stormwater, um, wastewater, um, the sewer wastewater piece, and then there's a water portion of it.

The water lines are currently owned by Hickson Utility District.

It is a separate entity.

They service those lines as well.

Um the proposal for the project is for the total project to be one particular package, one entire package with the proposed $8.9 million project, including the water line being water lines being replaced as part of that project.

We um staff did reach out to Hicks and Utility District.

We had several, we had three conversations with the general manager.

General manager invited us to present to the Hicks and Utility District Board.

Um, we had a great conversation with the Hicks and Utility Board District Board.

Um, they are in a position where they do not have funds in their capital plan for replacement of the water lines.

Um, they are also not in a position to propose an assessment on their current water uses users to reimburse for the construction of those water lines, and as a result, Hickson Utility District will not be participating financially in this project.

That being said, they are open to working with the developer on making sure the lines are built to district standards so that when they're dedicated over, they would accept those lines.

They would own and repair those lines in perpetuity in the future.

So again, at this point, Hickson Utility District is no longer in the conversations as it relates to proposed or potential funding or reimbursement of those water lines.

Okay.

So then are there other funding sources that the city is looking at?

The city has been having conversations actually since August with the Appalachian Regional Commission about a water infrastructure grant that they have.

The pre-application for that would be December 5th.

We would submit application December 5th following the establishment of the district.

And that particular application requires a match.

The proposed match would be any sales tax or property tax district that is within that district or the proposed plan, that could be used as a match towards applying for a million-dollar grant for construction for the water lines.

The only way that the city would be able to apply for that particular grant would be there has to be a match, and the city ordinarily would never put forward a match for those that type of situation.

But because proposed increment in sales tax would be used, those could count as a match for us to be able to apply for the other.

That's a pre-application.

It does not mean we're guaranteed that grant.

That's why we have not we have not sort of included that in the capital stack at any point during the conversation.

But we did have conversations with our local ARC folks in August, and they said, we're not sure about the TIFF, and then September, October, so they've been following all the proceedings as is everyone else.

And so when it got to a point where they said, okay, it looks like you guys might move forward with this, consider making application, but here's your deadline.

That would be submitted.

There's a community that were uh committee that would review it at the ARC at the state level, and then they would come back and let us know whether we would make would be eligible to make application.

At that point, we would come to council, ask for uh with a resolution that asked for permission to apply and accept if awarded a grant from the ARC, and then that would start that process.

Okay.

And then if the water portion of the project were removed from the rest of the project, what would that do to the viability of the project overall?

It jeopardizes the project overall, and it jeopardizes it not just from uh sort of a funding capacity, but it's also our ability to complete the rest of the rest of the project and in partnership with the developers.

So again, that that but for analysis that was required when that came back from the third-party reviewer, the third party reviewer gave us sort of that range, and the low end of the range said, you know, 7.7 is basically what the developer would have to receive in financing in order to even make the project have a positive return on it.

Um, and so again, looking at that, we would say we would want the water to stay in to make this a viable project for consideration.

Okay.

Those are all my questions, um, Madam Chair.

I do just want to kind of overall reiterate my support for the project.

I won't belabor all those points I've already made, but I will say I know there's been some concern raised by other council members as well as a lot of concern that I've heard within the district about what might eventually be developed at the Northgate Mall site, and kind of a desire to have input, community input and impact on what's eventually developed.

Um what I intend to bring before this council in a week or so, just as soon as I can get it together is a resolution that would urge the industrial development board when they're developing the development agreement with CBL to prioritize uses that the community has expressed a preference for, and then hopefully minimizing uses that are disfavored within the community.

Um of course, you know, this project, if it goes forward and is redeveloped, it's not just for district three.

Um it directly touches several districts on the north end of the city.

Um but um hopefully you know, residents from across Chattanooga would use it, and so I would welcome any input that any council members would have in that resolution.

If there's concerns, you've heard uses, great ideas, uh please send those to me so that I can include those in that resolution.

That's all I have, Chairwoman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember, is this about that same item?

It is.

Okay, thank you.

So, Sharita, I have a question kind of tacking along to the water lines.

I'm I'm in favor of this project as well and and support what councilman Davis said.

How do we how do we craft language in um in what we're doing today, or maybe it's further down the road that you all go ahead and proceed with seeing if we can get that grant, and then if we don't get the grant, then we you know we're still in for covering the part of the fee that we said that we would.

I mean, how do we craft that?

So we do have our our TIFF attorney here with us today, and we did work on some language around that because we knew this was a concern, so we came prepared for that.

And what that looks like is allowing the project to move forward with the water included, but limiting the use of tax increment dollars towards the water, unless unless city city staff comes back to the council and asks for permission to use those dollars.

Okay, so it keeps the project intact, but it while we're looking for other sources of funding, and then at the point where that funding does not come to fruition, we then come back and ask for a use of that additional that 1.6 million in sales tax or property tax that could be used towards the water.

Okay, because I'd I'd if there's an opportunity because you and I, and thank you for all the education that you've provided me.

And it sounds like we have a better chance than not getting some grant funding.

I know it's not guaranteed, but I hate to miss out on that opportunity and that money go to some other community when it's there, the opportunity is there for us to get it.

It is a competitive grant, but we have been having optimistic conversations with ARC to keep us in the mix.

Yes.

I mean, I I applaud the city for kind of taking charge and trying to find the funding for another utilities infrastructure.

So I think that that bodes well to us and saying that we want to make sure that this happens and we're willing to go out and find other sources.

So if there's some language that goes into, and I guess this a question is for the attorney, if there's some language that goes into it that moves forward with the project with our commitment to partner with CBL, but and also says in the event that we're able to secure any grant funding, whether it's through the the one that you described or maybe something else comes up, that that will be used first versus tax dollars.

So uh Mark Mavitoff with Bassbury and Sims, um we can if you wouldn't if you would choose to want to do something like that for both the economic impact plan resolution and the sales tax agreement resolution, you could and we can addrafted some language if you would like it, uh, that would basically say um that um that the the your the the resolutions are essentially amended so that they're conditioned upon not spending money on the water lines unless we come back to council to get approval to do that so that we have the incentive, we the city folks staff as well as the developer to try to get other sources, and if we're unsuccessful to come back to them because if we do take the water line out totally and don't get other sources, it really would affect the financial viability of the overall incentive.

But I think you'll you would want to you could have a second bite at the apple if you wanted to do that at that at that time.

So we could certainly give you that language.

I think we also wanted to suggest based on the third party uh report that the but four analysis we got that we hope somebody would uh lower the 9.2 million that's in the plan that's that was my next, yeah.

That was my next one.

So we have some language for that too, trying to be prepared so we could uh share that if that would be helpful.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, so I yeah, I would like to include that language, and I'll I'll propose it as an amendment to the resolution.

Uh if you all are willing to hear that, and then uh to the second point replacing that 9.2 with the 8.7 because we did discuss that two weeks ago.

Yeah, and it sounded reasonable.

So yeah, I think that that's I well, that's a it was a very difficult methodology, and I'm sure our friends at CBL would say that there's uh you know the the assumption here, assumption there could have changed the in the right, obviously, but we felt like eight point lowering it a half a million was a good compromise, and and and um and I think the staff is asking you all to consider that.

So um, and then la one other question, Madam Chair.

Um will you clarify either either of you clarify for me that um that the developer will be obligated to the baseline tax baseline, regardless of how the property values go up and down over the 20 year period.

So regardless of the status of the property, whatever that 520, I don't have that exact amount, that will stay steady over the 20 years or over the period of the debt until the debt's paid off, and then I had one of those OMG moments that are last time I was down here with you all when I was sitting there thinking through this because this is unusual because we know we're going to do a TIFF, we're about to demolish possibly a mall in four to five years, right?

And so, hey, I mean it's only valued at six million.

I know only, but those malls were at sometimes tens of millions of dollars.

So it's not that much money, but we know it's going to be demolished.

So unless we have other things to take its place, we will actually take a step backward at least for a period of time.

We've talked through that with the developer, and we're going to address that in the development agreement.

So that we would always get our baseline.

Okay, regardless.

Okay.

That is it, Madam Chair.

If you want to make a motion to that effect as well, but I can tell you that's our game plan.

Well, I I mean, I hate to uh it's like a handshake agreement.

It uh it may be smart to put it in writing because if it's not in writing, it doesn't exist.

Yeah, I did not prepare a motion for that, but I can I can help with one if you want to.

Yes, yeah, I would appreciate that.

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Councilman Henderson, is your uh polite look to discuss this topic?

Okay, councilman Henderson.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um and I think we definitely need uh an agreement at this at this point in time.

I mean, with with in regard to at least the baseline, and Sharita, the last time we talked about this, we we talked about whether to use the 2024 baseline or the 2025 baseline.

I was under the understanding that we could use the 2025 baseline, and it actually added a little bit to that baseline.

But you were telling me a few minutes ago that would take out the increment that we're looking at with BJs and Culversons.

So where the current projections for the TIFF have all been based on the tax base year being 2024.

And so any incremental taxes that will come in for 2025, that increment is what we're capturing to pay for the infrastructure.

Because again, it's an infrastructure TIF, so we're using current development and recent development that's underway, and we're capturing the incremental growth over the tax base and using that incremental to pay for the infrastructure.

Because again, there's not a vertical project that's that's generating all of this.

It's these other projects that are currently happening.

What we're trying to do is capture that increment before it goes into our general fund.

And so again, the basis will go into the general fund, but the incremental growth, that's what's going to fund the infrastructure that will generate additional taxes long-term.

That's what we're trying to capture.

So to move it out a year means you're not capturing that, that's going to your base now.

So you have less increment that you're going to be capturing, which means there's less funding in the TIFF district for the for the infrastructure of the project.

And and the other piece of that is all of our calculations over the past five months have been based on a 2024 tax year, not 2025.

So let me bring up one other thing about the base, and Mark, I think I understood you to say uh I had asked uh last time rather than the base staying flat, any tax increases that we experience over the next 20 years could be applied to that base.

I thought I understood you to say so that so that that base could grow and that we would receive more into our general funds if we applied uh any tax increases to that base.

Yes, I mean state law says that if you approve this plan this month, the base taxes are gonna be 2024.

But state law also says that you could withhold more than what state law allowed, you know, require, you know, the the floor.

It's a floor, it's not a minimum.

So but it does say that so your base for state law purposes will be 2024 taxes, but if you chose uh uh uh councilmember Henderson to say to make a motion to increase it either by amending the economic impact plan or just by instructing us to make sure we covered in the development agreement, yes, you could definitely do that, and we can and we could implement that.

Okay.

And your questions last time was would maybe realize about the base that how it could go down.

So thank you for your good questions.

Um and so that would be that would be an amendment to this that basically would um be included in the development agreement.

Well, you could move amend the actual plan.

It's probably easier if you don't mind because you could also is what I it's in response to the water line if you could just make your approval condition upon the development agreement, including an increase in the base that you know that would be the easiest way to implement it for us, but either way is fine.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh Sharita, the next thing I also had asked about was creating a business improvement district so that the businesses around this loop would also contributed contribute uh to this, making this a true public and private partnership because they will benefit from these improvements.

Where are we on creating a business improvement district that we could address some revenues from these businesses that would benefit?

So staff has currently not looked into the next steps of creating either a business improvement district or looking at the infrastructure development sort of district assessment that's new here in the state.

Um we're happy to come forward in 2026 and do an economic development committee overview of those two particular tools and how they might apply in this particular situation, recognizing business improvement districts historically have been for cleanup, you know, crime prevention, some of those other things, whereas this is straight infrastructure.

Um and as our TIFF attorney did uh mention last time with the infrastructure development district, that requires 100% approval of this body in order to put it in place, but it also requires 100% of the participants or the 20 businesses that are located in the district self-assessing themselves, essentially.

So they would have to agree that they want to assess themselves to go through this.

Um so we did not include that as part of these deliberations because it has not been shopped with any of the other property owners around.

Um it has not been fully explored with CBL and it has not been fully explored with either the city or the IDB from a staffing management cost to set up standpoint.

Okay.

It's my dad thing to that.

Our TIFF attorney wants to add to that.

No, I don't, I'm I mean, I I know it's only probably me in this room that's interested in this stuff.

So I'm sorry, but I I I would as I mentioned last time, there's all these different, there's at least four different special assessment statutes.

It would be, I think, and I don't know if you'll happen to know that Hamilton County got their first request for one under the new statute.

I don't think the new statute will apply, because you literally have to have every single property owner who would be assessed to actually adjoin in the application.

And I if you can ever you'll never get 17 people to agree to that.

There are other mechanisms that I mentioned that you all would have essentially have to agree to cram down an assessment.

Some take a supermajority vote, some don't.

If you all would indulge, I'd be delighted to come and walk you all through each alternative and decide whether you want to do it.

You don't have to do it as part of this.

This would still be an alternative to say in January, and I don't think we'll have a development agreement done.

I mean, this could be a hard development agreement as I discussed in response to some of your questions, Chairman Hill last time, and um and so I mean we can definitely come back and talk about it.

It really will make it tough on CBL, but I mean if that's something that you all want to look at, I can walk you through the processes and what the forms would look like and what the you know supermajority versus thing, but you know, it that will be a fairly complicated discussion, but I can assure you that I don't think the the new statute, which everybody's talking about, would be very workable here because of the requirement that every property owner join join in the request.

Madam Chair, I don't know how you would want to handle that, but I mean that that's something that I would like to look into.

And I don't I certainly don't speak for the rest of this council, and I don't know if the majority uh would like to look into this or would rather not look into it, but uh just you know looking at the scope of this work, it it looks like the city is carrying uh the water on this uh infrastructure improvement.

Uh whereas I I believe that we could work something more amenable to the taxpayers uh of this city by by looking at some kind of uh business improvement district where the people that are benefiting from this the improvements are are contributing as well.

Um what uh what I'm hearing Mark say is that moving forward with something like that is a complex process that would be served well with a good amount of thoughtfulness and time.

So are you suggesting that you want to see those two together and therefore hold off on moving forward with this TIFIT until you have that?

Well, so if it's my understanding I had asked about deferring this for that purpose, but but I think then that delays us being able to uh do the pre-submittal correct um for the matching grant.

Uh if that if that is something that we could look at after this, and so this goes basically to the IDB, then the uh development agreement is hashed out, and then we we in turn vote on that, correct?

That's correct.

And so what the the deliberations and the comments from council will feed into the development agreement that then goes to the IDB.

So when the IDB gets it, they understand which portions of the development agreement have come from city council.

And then and and again, I think on our schedule we said January, that's a little aggressive.

It's probably going to go to the IDB in February.

And councilman Davis is bringing a resolution that would include instructions employing the IDB to handle certain things within the development agreement, which personally I like a lot because it gives them some teeth in the discussion because it's not just their ideas, it's also the city councils about how we might learn more about how to use bid tools.

I think we have two options, two very clear options as a council, either within the economic development working group related to specific areas that council members and councilman Clark, um, I believe councilman Elliott are on.

I think that would be a great place to learn about that, but also in strategic planning could also be another opportunity.

So I think we can let our colleagues who are focusing on some specific economic development areas um lead us in that.

We could also, yeah, so we have three options.

Yes.

Um and I know uh from my own district, I've got some business owners that are interested in discussing that for a section of district two, they've been talking about it.

I think that there's been some conversation in other districts about that as well.

So um for all of our council to be well informed about how those tools work would be I think uh a boon to all of one all of us.

Um so we can think about where we would put that.

Um do you have any other questions?

That's it, thank you.

Okay, councilmanelli, does this relate to the TIFF?

Yes, okay.

All right, I'm I keep asking that because I have something to say, but I want to make sure all of you get to say your piece.

No, this is actually related to uh councilman Henderson's thoughts.

Um understanding that you know, we can uh look at this bid, whatever that looks like uh if we decide to go ahead and move forward with this considering the timing um with um end of the year, making sure if we do move forward with this, we can still capture the 2024 increment.

So essentially if we wait to 2025 and that increment goes away, basically it kills the purpose of the deal, essentially.

But what if we if we decided to move forward with it now?

Would you be okay if we had a um economic development committee meeting on January 13th to consider these bid options and the best way to move forward with them after the fact if we decide to go ahead and let this go through, then we can layer this on afterward so we can make sure we can capture that increment that is secure, and then we can consider other options.

Is that something that would work as a best path for it?

Based on what Mark Mametoff has said, I think it's gonna need a lot more discussion than that.

But if we would like to have an introductory session on bids, I think that at least gives us a better idea as to what our options are, especially I heard he said there's four different scenarios, what that could look like as far as um owners by signing into the program versus what does it look like for this to be uh city mandate, and just kind of gives us an idea, okay.

You know, this is in place now, what is the best route to make sure that we can explore your thoughts to make sure we can pull some of the department off the city.

Um I ask a follow-up.

Mark, uh so on a business improvement district, the property owners are the ones that are assessed, not the necessarily the business owners, correct?

Correct.

It's right.

So if if there's a retail center on a lot, then the it would be assessed.

That that is often why people won't agree on to a pre-existing structure because they often haven't thought through that in their leases and can't pass on the cost to their lessees, and they're like, I'm not gonna do this, I can't, I can't, I can't do this.

Yeah, Sharita, do we know how many property owners there are in that loop?

There are 14 lots, that's why I keep using the well, I understand, but does that mean there's 14 property owners?

No.

Oh, of the 14 lots are probably have some joint ownership.

Because I don't I don't know if we know what some of if how many of them have joint owners, but there would be there's at least nine.

I don't know if you heard John, there's at least nine separate ones.

Yeah, okay.

And I don't mean intrude in your proceedings, but just one like poor Franklin, they've had five workshops already on special assesses this new law because they're trying to adopt policy, something you all probably don't know is like if a developer shows up tomorrow with a petition under this new law, you have to vote on it in 30 days under this new law.

And so we're trying to help our lot of our because I almost exclusively represent governmental sides is like helping people think through how to provide an orderly process to this.

So I don't know if you'll want to sort of start the this discussion on sort of how this process works and be prepared for it when you're ready for it too.

So that could be something I could be glad to provide you all with some forms of what other people if you want to start sort of looking into how this is.

If we were to have it in uh as a committee meeting, it would be about a 10 to 15 minute presentation versus if we were to hold it in a work group, we would have an unlimited amount of time, versus if we were to hold it in strategic planning, we would have approximately 40 minutes.

So that's why I say if we want to have an introductory, here's a glossary kind of meeting in economic development.

The 13th will work.

Um that that won't be a problem.

We have a we have community development on the schedule for that day as well.

So we would need to keep it tight.

But if that is uh if that's what you all would like to do, we certainly can.

And thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not saying so we we can do it in committee, we can do it a strategic planning, whatever makes sense, but to make sure that this conversation doesn't go by the wayside, you know.

Seems like this is very important, and so I'd rather see like less land on a date so we can continue it so it's just not floating out there, so we can keep this conversation going and take some action if needed.

This is more lengthy.

Pardon me for being out of turn, but we could always start strategic planning at well took 12.

I mean, we can move it up if this is something that we need to spend some time on.

Can we have a strategic planning on that day?

We have slots open in strategic planning in February.

Oh is that too long?

Our next strategic planning opening is February.

Yeah, that's a little ways out.

It's just a committee.

Madam Chair, you filed a committee meeting on the 13th.

Sure, we will have approximately 15 minutes for committee meeting on the 13th.

So I think that'd be a great introductory, and then we can decide how we want to move forward after that.

Okay.

Melissa, will you make a note of that, please, and get it added to our schedule?

Thank you.

Question.

You said it was 15 minutes.

We typically hold presentations at 10 to 15 minutes, yes, for the courtesy of the council and the public in our committee meetings.

That is our standard.

Okay.

And then we have longer sessions for strategic planning and then work groups as designed are designed to be for as long as that work group would like to all of which are public meetings.

Yeah.

And each one I think gives a different type of environment for conversation and brainstorming.

So each one has its strength.

Okay.

Okay.

Do you have anything else on the tip?

No, ma'am, that's all.

Okay.

Um, I would like to add a few comments on the TIFF, please.

Um Councilman Davis, um, as I have uh studied this TIFF and learned about it.

I really appreciate the fact that you have had the number of community meetings that that you have hosted, and I I'm thankful I was able to attend one.

Um to my knowledge, I think you met with friends at Hickson and then hosted two additional events.

Um and I know other colleagues attended those as well because I think as a body, we're really trying to understand the will of the people of Hickson because this is a this is not a CBL TIFF as much as it is an economic development opportunity for an entire region of our community.

And I know for me, each time we do one of these, you know, we we spent a great deal of time as a council thinking through the Bend TIFF, you know, and how that would potentially reinvigorate the West side.

And I think we have we're who knows what we're gonna see coming out of other portions of our community.

Um, and each one we learn from it.

I think each one we try to do a little better than the next.

So I thank you so much for your collaborative spirit, and I will say I have because this is an uh infrastructure only, to me, I see a different level of risk because we don't know what's coming out of the ground.

And when I've talked to people in my own district, because we've had a lot of neighborhood association meetings lately, people are really chattering about this in my district because we're in proximity to North Gate Mall.

It's a primary shopping area for our district, and it's fascinating how much as people draw sort of here's my vision for what I'd love to see, how much overlap there is.

And um, so I really appreciate the idea of having a resolution that formalizes what the architects have said about charettes or what a developer has said about green space, but to really give clear uh direction from this council and specifically from the people of district three about here's where we want to head and what the expectation is if we're gonna go in as a community of of taxpayers, this is what we want to get out of it on the other end.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um, and Sharita and your team, as always, I thank you for the amount of feedback that you give us the way that you we we ask a lot of questions because it's our job, and you know that, and um your team rises to the occasion.

So thank you very much in helping us advocate for good deals for the people of Chattanooga.

Um, okay, council.

Moving on, um, we have a couple of other resolutions on the agenda.

Um, and uh under economic development, and then we have items under the city attorney.

There is an item here that um I know we've had some questions on.

Item E.

I'd like to invite um a member of LDO to speak to this item, the resolution withdrawing preserve Chattanooga's application at the applicant's request.

Um please introduce yourself if you could.

Yeah, sure thing.

I'm Cassie Klein.

I'm the historic preservation planner in the land development office.

Um I'm gonna give you some context on this application.

Basically, case HLM 231 for a local landmark designation for Wyatt Hall at 865 East Third Street.

Went before the Historic Zoning Commission for review in 2023, and the commission recommended approval for that landmark designation.

The application was then to come before you all at City Council, uh, but it did not get added onto an agenda based on feedback from Hamilton County Schools legal staff and city legal staff related to an attorney general opinion that states that city ordinances cannot regulate county government buildings, including schools.

So the interpretation from our city legal staff stated that the landmark designation could technically be added to this building, but it would essentially be ineffective as long as the property owner is Hamilton County schools.

So this application, just to know it was made prior to my uh to me beginning in this role, and so between that transition and the clarification needed for the legality of the designation, it has just remained in limbo.

Um we've been actively working on cleaning up any outstanding applications and permits in our system, which has led to us moving to resolve this outstanding permit with the applicant.

I also want to note that since this application is still outstanding, there is technically a moratorium on any permits that would be pulled on this building per section 1021 of the historic zoning ordinance.

So, based on all of this information, the applicant is now requesting to withdraw their request their application.

I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.

Um and the applicant has also requested an opportunity to speak to you all.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah, why don't we go ahead and get the applicant up just to clarify?

So, what I heard you say is the applicant has decided to rescind the application.

Yes.

And we're just clearing it.

This vote would be to clear that out of the system at the request of the applicant.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, I think your applicant is here.

But if this is Todd Morgan, right, thank you.

Uh, I'm Todd Morgan, the executive director of Preserve Chattanooga.

And when I first came to Chattanooga, I was so excited that we had local historic landmark ordinance uh in the books because that's very progressive.

So congratulations to Chattanooga for thinking about that.

Um we were approached uh by alumni from CSAS to apply for local landmark designation.

They had about 8100 signatures in support.

And they also raised the money to pay for producing the application and submitting it to the Historic Zoning Commission.

As we've gone through a little bit of time and we've learned that there are issues with the school board actually having to be accountable to the regulations under LHL.

We feel like it's not a good use of this designation at this point in time.

This is such a good tool for the community to have.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Elliott, did you hit your like for this item?

Or I might be getting a little mixed up with my board.

No, it was, but we have another item.

Okay under resolutions.

But I can't got a couple folks too.

I can wait.

So we're fine.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Clark.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Todd, thank you so much for your work on this.

And as a proud um graduate of Chattanooga School for the Arts and Sciences, I I'll be honest with you, this is a great concern of mine.

Uh that the application is being withdrawn.

I was one of those 81,000 signatures.

Uh my family, nieces, nephews still attend that school.

And my concern is is that although the city is no longer in the education business business, and the county is responsible for the issues dealing with regulations.

And I'm assuming that is with the historic register, is that is that correct?

It's if uh you're a local historical.

Sorry, and that microphone is low and I cannot hear up here.

Thank you.

Is this a little bit better?

Yeah, I think it needs to be raised just a bit.

Okay, go ahead, proceed.

With local historic landmark designation, it falls under the Chattanooga Historic Zoning Commission.

Okay.

And so we've just had those guidelines updated, but in essence, they would have to follow the Secretary of Interior standards for how to treat that property.

So if they were replacing windows or doing work on the brick or something significant to the exterior, there are specific recommendations for how to do that properly on the old building.

You and I have met extensively, I'm interested in historic preservation, especially my school and that just not CSA, it's there's been multiple schools, including our uh wonderful chair is also an alumni of that school as well.

Oh Patriots, and but other than the school itself, right?

We're talking about historic preservation.

There's other buildings that we have seen go by the wayside in Chattanooga, not to beat a dead horse, but this is a grave concern of mine.

When we withdraw applications, and what I'm hearing, and I don't know if this should come by form of resolution.

I know we don't have any enforcement as I think was what I heard.

Are you an attorney?

No, I'm a planner.

A planner, okay.

So what I heard in the interpretation of the law is that we don't have jurisdiction because we don't own the building, and if not, what has the conversation been with the school system and their plans for Chattanooga School for the Arts and Sciences?

Yeah, so they were opposed to this designation because they don't want to have to be held subject to the Secretary of Interior standards.

Those can increase expenses because they're a higher level of taking care of a property than just sort of patching things as you go along.

Um but because of that, um they were pretty adamantly posed, at least the superintendent and also the school's attorney, the school system's attorney.

Specify any specific regular regulations from the Department of the Interior.

Uh no, they didn't specify any regulations, but the consensus is from you know that the land itself is more valuable than the school building, which I disagree with my profession, and I would like to point out that this LHL application focused on RH Hunt's Wyatt Hall.

It doesn't mean the site can't be redeveloped, you know, as far as the football field or the old gym.

Doesn't mean that it's not a great adaptive reuse project, be wonderful for residential at some point.

I've seen so many successful projects like that.

So we would like to see this property protected long term because it's such a signature building in this community.

And uh you'll see me again talking about LHLs, especially as we move into the preservation plan next year.

I want to be sure that everyone on council has a chance to provide input on that and that you understand what that ordinance is and how it can be used to help protect and significant places in the city.

Um Madam Chair, I want to enter to the record that I plan to introduce a resolution uh sent over to the Halman County School Board and the superintendent that we plan to preserve that building uh and that we would like plans to understand what their usage is for that uh as it relates to historic preservation.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Councilman Harvey, or is this about this?

It is, yes, thank you, my chair.

Um I I too uh have an uh great respect for our our uh our architecture here in town, our historic uh buildings, R.

H.

Hunt, extremely uh well known here in our town and responsible for a lot of our buildings, including this one, um the old city high school and now CA CSAS.

So uh I just want to piggyback off of what uh councilman Clark was was saying, and you don't have to answer this now, but something I would ask that you look into is can the county commission or the school board basically do what we've been asked here is to adopt some sort of historical you know preservation landmark on their behalf since they are the ones that indeed own the uh own the property.

So uh perhaps that's something that they can look at and vote on uh and I hope that they would consider um because one thing I uh have conversations even with the mayor is is you know we are the scenic city because of of what we're surrounded with, not only our natural beauty, but our architecture.

That's right.

And we don't want to lose that.

Um so I know my my grandparents uh uh passed by city high school uh on their way to central.

And so uh, you know, it's it's something that we don't want to lose, or at least we can repurpose and still maintain.

So I would ask ask you to ask them if there's anything that they can do uh to you know preserve it on their behalf.

Sure.

Uh it would be up to them to set an internal standard for how they care for that property.

Uh if you want to get into actually making it enforceable from a city perspective, it would have to have that LHL designation, or they would have to be willing to donate an easement, a preservation easement to an organization like ours, which would be then responsible for enforcing uh those guidelines being used correctly.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for what you do.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cassie.

Yeah.

Okay, council.

Do we have any questions on other resolutions?

Items through M.

Councilman Elliott.

Yes, ma'am.

I will be looking to make a motion to um for item D under economic development for one week.

Item D.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, all right.

Then I will not do those as a package.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

It is item D under economic development.

One week, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Any other notes on resolutions, council?

Okay.

All right.

Seeing none, let's take a look at our purchases for this evening.

Okay.

Looks like we're good.

Uh-huh.

Councilman Clark.

Don't be upset at me, but I think I might need to backtrack to resolutions if that's permissible.

Or is it on purpose?

No.

Uh I see it.

It's under public works.

Public works resolution.

Okay, council.

Do we have any questions on purchases?

It looks like we do not.

So I'm gonna go ahead and close out that portion of our planning.

Okay, so my apologies, madam chair.

Um, I have a question about the resolution.

Um Public Works H with the Autumn Park connector phase in the amount of 1.6 million.

And just as a point of clarity, uh, I don't know who's coming forward.

Hi, my question is uh with the connector, does this involve some of the work that would be done to connect?

I think it was the bikeways or explain a little bit to me about if this is in conjunction to the repair issues that were happening as it relates to where the park is going.

Is it the same thing, someone do you mean where there's a detour?

Yes.

I think that's related to the stadium.

And this is this just to be sure, this is item H about Alton Park Greenway.

That's correct.

Well, says Autumn Park Connector Phase One.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Which would be the greenway.

Right.

So uh Bill Payne's uh city engineer in the public works department.

So this uh this project is for a section to add some greenway and some sidewalks along West uh 33rd.

So from the section that's uh between St.

Omo Avenue over to uh DeLong Street, so all of this would be work within existing right-of-way.

It will connect to some work that's been done by one of the recent developments that's in that area.

So this makes a connection that eventually will be able in future phases, would continue to go towards the east.

Um, but it's it's just part of that plan project.

Eventually, that portion that runs north and south.

There was mention of the stadium, that portion that runs north and south along through that uh portion will be reopened once the once the work immediately adjacent to the stadium.

In conjunction with the state, this is a portion north or south where the stadium is happening.

It it ties into that portion.

Okay.

Um, but it's but this is this is separate from that.

So this is this is to extend um a connector greenway to the that runs to the east.

Um ultimately it runs it and through all of the phases, and there's multiple phases with different types of funding sources um that would ultimately go all the way uh over towards East Lake and Crabtree in those future phases if they're all able to come to fruition, but this first section would go from only go from St.

Elma.

Any of the finances dealing with the architect or the construction of the stadium?

Uh no, sir.

No, this problem neither this piece nor the other are are related to the stadium.

Uh that stadium infrastructure is for the extension of West 26th Street and the relocation of the of the river walk immediately adjacent to the stadium.

I thought this may have been connected to some issues we had regarding a bike wave that was obstructed that where we were hearing people concerned about not rerouting it.

Is that is that is that not in connection to this okay?

I just want to make sure.

Um how many miles is this?

Uh I didn't measure it in miles, it's basically about six blocks.

So it's less than a mile in total.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Certainly.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Absolutely.

It's an exciting one to get moving on.

Okay, council, let's take a look at our two-week agenda, please.

We do have um a scheduled public hearing for a request for de-annexation.

Um, do we need to have an attorney client?

Yes, briefly on that.

Okay, we will have an attorney client meeting council um during our recess.

All right, hit your light.

We won't talk about the final reading.

Hitchelite if you have any questions about first reading.

I would like to invite Stan Sewell up from the Office of Internal Audit to give us some background on the internal audit items that are on this agenda.

Stan Sewell, city auditor.

I see you all.

Um didn't particularly have anything special prepared for this, but uh generally what we're looking at is you have two ordinances and a resolution that really um back in 2012 when there was a charter amendment.

It it's issues came before or went to a I think a committee of the council back after that in 2012, and they just never made it for action, and so they're they're kind of like 13 years behind.

And all it really does is it gets the city code and the resolution in line with uh the language that's in the charter, for instance.

Um if you look at the the easiest thing would be the resolution.

If you have a red line, I don't know if Phil provided you guys with that or not.

If you have a red line of it, all you see is it just changes titles.

So instead of personnel administrator, it says chief human resources officer, you know, and then we go to chief information officer and then city auditor instead of director of audit.

Um so just terminology changes.

I think it's always seen there.

The whistleblower uh ordinance, it is it is literally practically the same whistleblower ordinance that currently exists, it's just getting terminology again.

I think if you look at a red line, you'll see probably we were using personnel administrator back then, and now it's chief human resources officer, and we use city auditor instead of director of audit.

Um then the one other ordinance is there was an the audit committee uh created that was on in the city code in the ordinance, and when the charter referendum took place, it replaced that.

And so more or less you end up in a situation where that entire article of the city code could have or should have maybe after the charter transferred everything from the city code to the charter.

You know, you would look at it as the majority of that is being deleted because that appointment process for audit committee and everything else that was in the city code, it moved over to the charter.

Um, but there were a couple of provisions in there, like one about subversion of the audit process that um and I believe uh communications one other issue, what was it?

Communications, yeah, just communication that the ensuring that communication, you know, um is there for instance, just basically it provides that you know if there was some critical issue that the audit committee became aware of or the office of internal audit, we're gonna come before this council and let you guys know about it, right?

Some some major problematic issue.

Um, and that's really all that's left in there.

There was one other section, I think, um, that's modified due to some terminology changes that that occurred um in terms of like a management analyst um that actually ended up being eliminated in 2016, I believe, by the council.

Okay.

Thank you, Stan.

So council, we do have red lines available from the city attorney in our email.

Yes.

Um, and so you can take a look at those um in preparation for the vote next week.

We have a question from Councilman Elliott.

Quick question, Stan.

What do you all define as critical issues?

How do y'all determine what does roll-up and what doesn't?

Yeah, it's it's a bit subjective, but it's kind of like you know it when you see it.

Um in general, if we have some issue that comes up and we're obligated to investigate things, right?

Like then the audit committee oversees the fraud, waste and prevention and print fraud, waste and abuse prevention program.

So if something critical came up that was important, we're generally going to do an investigation, we're gonna get that report where it needs to go.

If there are issues, all our reports, our audit reports are always communicated to the council, so those things come up.

For something to occur, I don't think historically I've ever been aware of anything that came up that was so critical, it's like it's Monday, and I need to come to this Tuesday's council meeting to tell the council.

Um defining that specifically, it would be very difficult to do.

It's very subjective.

It's like I said, probably more like I just know it when I saw it and know that I needed to get in front of you guys and let you knew it.

And to be quite honest, something like that would probably be something where we knew administration was gonna was imminently about to do something that was just we felt like you know was not good, and the count the governing body needed to be aware of it.

Okay, one question.

Do you guys have certain things that you have to report to the controller's office?

Absolutely.

Do you report report everything or just so elevated?

Any so we all of our audit reports that always go to the council, always go to the mayor, we always copy the comptroller's office on audit reports.

Um those are different, different than things when we do an investigation or review.

Um with those issues, if we find any time we find there's a state law and it's actually applies to you all and every city employee, the same as it does to me and to the employees in the office of internal audit.

There's a state law that says if you become aware of of any criminal activity, fraudulent activity, and they name a few other things like violations of of law or what have you.

You are obligated as a public official, and the state defines a public official as any city employee, you're obligated to report that to the componters office in the state of Tennessee.

Um I have communicated with them in the past, and I've uh there's a there's a clear understanding there, it doesn't mean every employee of the city has to report everything.

So uh if we find something, we're gonna report it.

And so if we report it to you as a counsel or to the mayor or to whomever to both of them, that is uh say a violation of law, when I report that to you, I've also already reported it to the comproller.

I'm reporting it to them right after I report it to you.

So you know it's been reported to the comproller.

And do you guys report uh when you report to the computer?

Are you guys sending those violations to us as well?

It it depends.

Um if we find it an audit, you're gonna have it.

If it's uh if it's a report or something like that.

So let's say um this may help you.

Yeah, can you start sending those to us?

Absolutely.

Can you start send those to us a little bit?

If you guys if if this council says and and you may recall, so I I do every four years I do a little session with you guys, so every one of you has set in on me.

And in every one of those, I've always asked, you know, I've explained the way we do reporting.

The audit reports always go to the council and mayor, the post-audit reviews always go to the council and the mayor.

Other issues get reported to where they need to go for the appropriate action to be taken.

So a lot of times we might be see something maybe that's indicative of somebody has stolen uh the you know, uh pocketed some cash, whatever it might be, uh stole some gift cards.

Okay.

Um we're generally gonna get that to human resources, the chief human resources officer.

I'm gonna copy maybe the uh uh chief operating officer and the department head who's over that, and then they're gonna go take the disciplinary action to deal with that.

Where I would feel an obligation to bring it to the council might be is if they just ignored it.

But if you guys, like I've I've mentioned in uh always have in those sessions that that I've done, um I go over that process and I say, are you guys comfortable with the way we do this?

And the answer has always been yes, like you know, I said do you want to change that?

Because it can be.

If if if this council wants me to send everything to it, oh no, not everything.

Yeah.

You just want to know if if we send something to the comp trolls.

We find something.

Absolutely.

I can put that in our formal written documented procedures.

If that happens, it can be in our stamp template.

And if you're asking for that right now, I will do it.

Okay, perfect.

That's that's that's perfect, sorry.

So no one else uh objects to to doing that, I guess.

Right, like having information is not bad, but you don't want to be overloaded.

No, well, we don't need everything.

All right, thank you, madam chair.

Absolutely.

Okay, looks like we're all good.

Thank you very much, Santa.

I appreciate the work you do and your uh clarification on those items.

All right, council.

We will talk about the planning items and planning, uh, which brings us to um economic development items.

If you have any other questions about these, please go ahead and hit your light.

This isn't our two-week agenda.

We will be having a legislative committee at which point we will be discussing the carriage horse ordinance that councilman Henderson has been working on, and also the air pollution control board has um some changes that they would like us to consider as well.

All right, looks like we are all set.

So I'd like to hand the chair over to Chairwoman Burge for planning and zoning.

Oh, we didn't do future considerations.

Dag I'm a this is what happens when we take a week off.

I apologize, everybody.

Sorry, sorry, Jenny.

Okay, but wait, there's more okay.

Future considerations.

If you've got any questions on future considerations, please hit your like.

Um, I would like to draw the council's attention to item 10a, which is under parks, and it is uh a request to accept funds from the state of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Local Parks Acquisition Fund to purchase the Mountain Creek Quarry for use as a park.

I think that's a huge win for the people of Chattanooga.

Um just terrific.

So congratulations.

That's in District One, is it not?

Wonderful.

All right, looks like okay.

I sat up, I stood up, I sat down, and we're back to we're back to planning and zoning.

Okay, I'm really going this time.

Thanks.

Okay, um good afternoon, everyone.

I'd like to call to order today's planning and zoning meeting, uh committee meeting.

Uh, may I get a motion to approve the minutes from our November meeting?

So move.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I'd like to proceed with today's agenda, and um, as Karen makes her way up here, you all should should receive the proposed agenda in your packet.

Um Chairwoman Hill, I know you mentioned a couple weeks ago that you did want to hear a presentation on both of the items in district two.

Are there any items that are not highlighted in other districts that you all would like to hear about so councilman Clark?

You'd like to hear.

Looks like you've got uh one and two in district five council.

Three and district, what would you add the one I do not want to hear?

Well, so typically uh we asked Karen to go over the items that are highlighted because those have some sort of opposition or there were some additional conversation.

The ones that are not highlighted, no opposition, they were approved by the planning commission.

So if there's an item that is not highlighted that you would like to hear about that's in your district, uh there is one uh mostly the ones that were stalled creek consulting.

I'm trying to see what is there.

Uh there's item 2001 six five.

Okay.

Uh it can there's the one that is being withdrawn.

I like to make public comments on there's also a zoning case that's not on here that's going to planning commission in December that I'd like to also make public comments on as well.

Okay, all right.

Um, and then we have some items on first reading today that are on today's agenda.

Uh, those are three items that have been discussed at some time previously over the last month.

But since we've got Karen up here, is there anything that's going to be voted on on first reading today that anybody has any additional questions about?

I'm going to defer my tool again.

Okay, all right.

And then we'll be going over the items that are on for December 9th.

Okay.

And Chairwoman Hill, um, the item that Councilman Clark just mentioned is 2025 0124, Stone Creek Consulting for Murray Hills Drive.

They have requested to withdraw that case.

And that was the one that was just mentioned.

That's item B on the agenda for tonight under first reading.

Okay.

Okay.

And then Vice Chair Noel item C and item D, you're going to defer.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

So nothing else to discuss from today's agenda.

All right.

So moving forward, um, let's start with item D 0147.

Okay.

So this case is at 915 Barton Avenue.

It's a requestary zone from R and two residential neighborhood zone to the CN neighborhood commercial zone.

And the request was for a mixed use building, including personal services, retail, and residential.

Um, and this is to help orient.

Um, this is on Barton Avenue, just at the turn, excuse me, with Hicks and Pike across from Riverview Park.

And so the general zoning pattern is the areas that property properties that front on Hanover Street, and that is to the back of this property.

Um, their zone commercial, and then there's a line of these four properties that front on Barton, their zone residential.

And so 921 Barton Avenue is just east of the site.

It was rezoned to UGC with conditions in 2019.

And I believe that we have the conditions wrong in the staff report.

So I'm going to read those just to help you kind of orient to development in the area.

Um there are four conditions for that property, um, audit-oriented uses, hospitals, self-service, storage facilities, motel, hotel, billboards, um, miniature golf, outdoor amusement, adult orange establishments, open air markets are prohibited.

There's a few other uses, but that's kind of the catch-all.

Building height limited to two and a half stories of 35 feet, retain the existing structure and no dumpsters located within 30 feet of any residential zone or use.

And so that is the Barton Avenue to the east, and then the um Hanover Street was rezoned to UGC, and it has very similar conditions.

And so while there is a series of zoning in that area, commercial zoning, the most recent history has placed conditions on those uses.

So the sites located as part of a neighborhood node, a mix of land uses.

Um there's some commercial, a restaurant bar, office, park, residential uses.

So the request for that neighborhood commercial um type use is um those uses can be compatible with adjacent land uses.

But the CN zone permits nine residential uses such as liquor stores, lodges, retail goods, establishments, outdoor sales and displays, animal care facilities, and funeral homes that may not be compatible.

And um Chairwoman Hill just mentioned um trying to understand the staff, the excuse me, the recommendation for you.

So I plant printed out a handout.

And this is just the difference between the CN zone and the CNT zone.

So the applicant requested the CN commercial zone, and staff because of concerns about that, um, the use is allowed in that zone because this is across from residential property.

So as you had a little bit um down the block to the east and turn that corner, you've got commercial uses against either the park or commercial uses here.

You're starting to transition to the residential uses across Barton Avenue.

So staff had some concerns about that.

But staff noted that the CN and CNT zones both have maximum gross floor area square footage requirements to limit massing of the buildings and help keep the form compatible, and that helps with um the compatibility of both zones.

So staff recommended denying the CN neighborhood commercial zone and approving the CNT neighborhood transition zone.

And it did a slide a comparison.

They're pretty similar.

The C and neighborhood commercial zone, as you can tell from the rundown of allowable uses, is a little bit more permissive.

And so staff recommended denying the CN, approving the C and T because the list of permitted uses is less.

I believe that coffee shop was specifically mentioned.

So Planning Commission asked staff to develop possible conditions for the C and T zone.

And so excuse me, for the CN zone.

So it's more intense.

So opening up the door to some potential uses, but still noting it's in a transition area.

So staff developed the four proposed conditions on the on the slide.

So of all the uses in the CN zone, residential office, personal service, retail, and eating and drinking establishments with fewer than 50 streets with no drive-in or curb service would be allowable uses.

Limiting the hours of operation, no dumpster and no grease trap shall be permitted, because the applicant mentioned a coffee shop, but did not mention a full-scale restaurant.

This was intended to kind of keep keep that a little bit less intense, and then retain existing structure except for construction needed for repairs and ADA compliance.

That is so there would not be that residential structure wouldn't be torn down and then a full commercial building built.

So at that time Planning Commission did find those conditions acceptable and is recommending the CN zone subject to the following conditions.

But then with the limitations in place here.

Okay, so I've got feedback for this is an interesting area because I'm sorry, I was not acknowledged.

You're you're okay.

I just turned your microphone on, so you are good to go.

Thank you.

No, y'all, you think I never been here before.

So this neighborhood, this this area, contiguous area has undergone a really lovely organic shift toward neighborhood commercial.

And within the draft of Plan Chattanooga, it is intended to be a small neighborhood commercial node.

Um, and I think that that residents really appreciate this this walkable commercial area.

Um so when I see these limitations, I I wonder Justice Midge, because it is right next door to a restaurant that I don't believe has to close at eight o'clock.

And the dumpster and grease trap, again, I I don't know what the conditions are on that restaurant, but I want I help me understand why we would want to preclude this site from becoming a restaurant five years from now.

So I think that based on the discussion with the applicant at Planning Commission, which the applicant had one proposed use, which was to continue and to have a residential use.

I think because the other identified use was the coffee shop, the the conditions are drafted to that.

The retail eating, the excuse me, the eating and drinking establishment with fewer than 50 seats would allow a restaurant.

Um, but yes, the the hours of operation were tending to reflect that you're getting closer to the residential properties across the street.

So the property at the end of the block that has the commercial sign, that is let's see if we can go out a little bit.

You're lit, you're closer to Riverview Park.

You've got, I guess it's the Vine Street Bakery across the street, and then you have those large backyards of the residential property.

On this, um, you're starting to transition to be a little bit closer to the residential across the street.

And so that is why this condition, this set of conditions is a little bit more restrictive because the applicant did not have an identified use that's other than wanting to do something, and because we're we're starting to set the um the for these four properties along Barton, and then the one as you turn the corner onto Hicks and Pike.

It was to just kind of start a little bit lesser of a transition because of those properties across the residential properties across the street.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for sharing that rationale.

I appreciate it, I'll give it some thought.

And I think that I when doing the um just in the presentation, I think it would be helpful for me to share with you the language and the zoning ordinance that limits the size of the retail business, and that might help help your decision too.

I will share that.

Okay, thank you.

That'd be awesome.

Okay.

Any other questions about item D, 0147.

Okay.

Um the next item that had this case did have opposition, um, is a rezoning from RN16 and IH heavy industrial zone to the RN13 residential neighborhood zone.

And this property is at 1300 and 1335 Mercer Street, and the proposals to do single unit detached residential.

And so, just as a reminder, the R and 1-3 residential neighborhood zone is a single unit residential zone, detached residential zone allows lot sizes as small as 3,000 square feet.

Um, and so and it doesn't allow ADUs, just as a note, it is for just single family residential detached uses as its primary use.

Um, just note the pattern two is the um help orient here.

Lepton Mills Meadow is shown on the slide.

The um industrial zone property is just to the north of there, and then across Mercer Street, you have the residential zone properties.

So you have the two zones requested to both go to RN13.

Um there have been a series of uh rezoning applications over time for this site for these two properties.

They've been bundled together.

There's a 2018 and then two cases in 2019.

All cases were withdrawn at some point in the rezoning process.

So again, this is um Lupton City's primarily single unit residential.

Lupton Mills Meadow is shown there, and then across the railroad track is uh Riverton under construction.

So site plan is showing the single uh family or single unit detached lots.

Um, and then you can see the configuration is at heads um kind of northwest across Mercer Street.

So uh staff spent some time looking at lot sizes.

Um most of the lot sizes on Mercer Street north of 1300 Mercer Street property are approximately 3,400 to 5,000 square feet.

The setbacks are as small as zero feet on the side setbacks for some dwellings and as large as 66 feet for the rear setback.

But again, staff is uh thinking about that RN13 and that possibility for a 3,000 square foot minimum lot size, and just noting that there are smaller lots prevalent in the area, and then the lots north of the Whitney Street side of the property that range from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet.

There are larger lots south of the site and other areas of the Lupton City neighborhood, and then uh one of the comments um in opposition was just the lot configuration and how those lots are configured versus the lot configuration in the lot pattern already set in Lepton City.

So the primary use in the area is single family detached residential, the proposed uses are can be more compatible with the existing residential neighborhood, particularly that vacant residentials or excuse me, vacant manufacturing zone.

Um the Hickson North River plan call recommends low density residential for the area, the request for smaller lots, single unit detached homes is compatible with land use goal, and the many of the uh single unit detached dwellings in the area are historic lots of record with varying lots widths and setbacks, some of which are non-conforming with the current RN16 zone regulations.

Some of the discussion at Planning Commission was it's zoned RN16.

Why when there's smaller lots already in place, and we just noted it was all R1 with the new zoning ordinance, RN15 in the urban area, RN16 for much of the area outside that urban zone.

So they were just noting it already seems non-conforming.

There was opposition present at Planning Commission.

Staff uh note that staff had previously designed denied similar requests.

We talked about those three other cases earlier that were drawn, concerns about traffic on-street parking, keeping curb cuts to many minimum, and it's not consistent with the neighborhood pattern.

Staff found that the request is compatible with the plan, urban form, and adjacent land uses and recommends approval chairwoman Hill.

Thank you very much.

Um I do think that this neighborhood is a prime candidate for an R13 designation.

It is made slightly more complex because it is a this neighborhood is I believe the first planned community in the United States.

And the community is looking, they are they're working with staff to pursue a historic designation for the community.

So I think the biggest concern that we have at this point is the height of the units.

We also have those with a zero foot back setback on the alley.

It's pretty wild.

All that to say, um I've been talking with the the applicant's builder, and I do expect, madam chair, that we will defer this possibly for as many as two months.

Um because they're just that they the developer has provided a has provided a sketch that was one story, but apparently they got a little lines crossed in the one story that the community was like, okay, yeah, we can get behind that.

Then they're like, wait a second, we don't think we can the numbers might not work on that.

So uh don't show me something that we can get excited about.

We can't really do it.

Yeah.

Um, so we'll see where this one heads, but it'll it'll be delayed for sure.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions about 0168?

I seeing no other lights.

Uh move on to the next item.

Let's go with 0165.

Okay.

This is a request to re zone 4115 Shaliford Road and unaddressed property in the 4100 and 4200 blocks of Shallowford Road from RN16 residential neighborhood zone and CC commercial corridor zone to the IL industrial light zone for warehouse and lay down yard.

And so there are two properties here shown on the screen highlighted in red.

They are not contiguous, but both of those are part of the same request.

There's no recent zoning history for the site.

The M3 zone, there was property zone M3 in 2012, and that had a condition subject to no access to Aguilla, which is the street on the left that um starting to curve west, and that goes into a residential neighborhood.

And so there's a the property that's currently on Shallowford Road is the CC Commercial Corridor Zone.

That's the old C2 zone.

Um, and then the property to the larger property is the RN16 residential neighborhood zone.

The site is on Shallford Road right at North Moore Road.

That's the property or excuse me, the road coming up from the south.

The surrounding development form is consistent with suburban commercial and industrial corridor.

Um Aguilla Drive is to the west as mentioned, and much of this portion of Shallerford Road has undeveloped areas due to the proximity of South Chickamauga Creek and the floodway or flood zone.

This is a flood map of the area, the property in its entirety, uh, the two properties in its entirety are either in the floodway or flood zone.

Um so the applicant site plan showed again.

We have the two two different properties, same project, the property on Shallford Road, and then the lay down yard, the proposed lay down yard was is highlighted there on the screen.

It's a smaller portion of the larger lot.

So staff noted the sites surrounded by commercial uses and vacant land.

There's that residential residential development to the west.

Um North Brainerd plan recommends a medium business mix for the north for that um front portion on Shallford Road and single family residential for the rear portion.

But staff noted the majority of that sites in the 100-year floodplain or the floodway, and just noted that placing homes in the floodway in the flood close proximity floodway or in um puts occupants and property at the risk of damage and loss from flooding.

So the applicant's proposal for a laydown yard with no structures appears to be a more appropriate land use to limit impacts to adjacent residential property in the South Chick watershed.

So staff recommended um denying the applicant's request and we're approving a reduced area.

So instead of the requested area, which includes the yellow and blue, just the areas in blue, which are the property on Shaliford, and that portion that's just the lay-down yard.

That comes with conditions, uh, recommended conditions, office warehouse and lay door lay down yard use only, maximum building height of 45 feet, and a six-foot-tall side obscuring fence shall be installed along around the perimeter of the aisle zone portion unless determined through permitting that the fence would impede floodway function, excuse me, floodplain function.

So the idea is to um because there is residential um uses to the west to screen the lay down yard unless it's determined that with storm water that that doesn't work for the floodway.

So again, just a smaller portion, just the lay down yard.

Uh Planning Commission found that was um reasonable and comes to with the same recommendation to you Chairwoman Hill, did you have or is that from the last?

Okay.

Chairman Clark.

Thank you.

Oh my Chairman Clark.

I mean, sorry, Councilman Clark.

You're a chairman at some point at some point.

Sorry, not for the GC.

Not until next year.

I'm certain I'm sure Cedric Hinton would be very glad we're not having community development till next year.

Which I'll resume chairman.

Oh yeah.

Uh Karen, I like to go back because there's been a lot of conversation about this zoning stuff, and I need to bring some clarity to this.

Unfortunately, I was out of the country for 14 days, and when you're away, that's when the little messy stuff kind of gets in the way of things.

So I want to bring some things to clarity for the public.

Um dealing with this from our discussion on November 6th when we met with Stone Creek Consultant.

Can you explain for the public that for the rezone in the blue is for light industrial, and what are the applicants' plan for that site?

So I believe the applicant expressed that there is a um it is a development, the property owner owns.

I believe all the properties shown on the site plan, including multiple properties at front on um Shalifer Road, and I believe the applicant um was talking about like a corporate headquarters or corporate warehouse headquarters would be moved here.

So redevelopment of not just those two properties, but the site in general, and I believe he used something similar to that terminology.

So for the industrial light zone, does that include any heavy machinery in and out of that property?

So right now, the only language or excuse me, the only uses are office warehouse and lay down yard, but I do believe that that would be the lay down yard would be accessed by would be accessed by um trucks associated with going in and caught and related to contractor use.

Can you explain what lay down yard is?

Yeah, so my understanding is that that is kind of like a contractor storage yard where they that's where they would be storing materials they would be using.

I don't believe any structure but storage of materials that are involved in their process.

But the planning commission's recommendation was not to approve the industrial heavy zone.

It's to improve the zone.

Um, and I'm sorry, yes, it does, it's a typo there because it has um industrial heavy, but it is um the IH.

Let me double check that.

Thank you for flagging this there is a typo.

Um make sure it is the and then I want to talk about the North Brainer Plan once you've um it is the IL industrial light zone.

Okay.

And so the um to allow those uses only, but that doesn't preclude trucks that would be associated with that use from accessing the site onto Shallowford.

Could and maybe we could talk about conditions.

I know there was a concern regarding because just up the way where Vulcan is, there's concern where our adjacent districts are, madam chair, where the trucks entering into Shaliford, right?

In that particular area, I've got a school zone.

I've got two school zones.

I've got high density of residential right there in the Indian Hills area.

And so our concern was regarding if it was light industrial, heavy industrial, what does specifically considering the nature of this company's business, what type of impact would that have on the residential area?

And for that I have concern.

Um and I don't know if that could be clear if that could be specified in any conditions, but I'd like more information before proceeding with this.

Um do you have any information on that?

I'm sorry, and I should clarify that it is for IH.

I'm sorry, I check the um I check the resolution.

Okay, so it is um and conditions usually are applied to the property that is in the part process of zoning.

So if the um happy to talk to you about conditions and if it's particularly off of access or concern about where um north more is, we it would apply to that, particularly that southern portion.

Gotcha.

Um, and um we are happy to help draft conditions.

So the blue parcel that's on Shalifer, right?

Yes.

That is that is also rezoned with the request for rezoning for light and or heavy industrial industrial.

And those conditions would apply to it also.

But we don't have any information on what they will put on the road facing Charlotte.

So regarding the use.

I mean, yes.

Well, it's not connected to the rest of the property.

That's right.

It's on Shaliford.

So my question is is that what is the intended use if it's not connected?

And we're talking about industrial.

So I'd like more clarity on that, but for the record, um, I'm not 100% in favor of this until there's clarity about what industrial impact it's in the middle of a residential area, and two parcels down, there's Eastwood senior housing.

And I have a middle school across the street.

Right.

And an empty Walmart, which I'm still upset about, but we need to be cautious about the property in that area.

And I've mentioned this to our economist Sharita, that when we have large parcels in the middle of urban centers, especially in district five, and when we're considering business and development districts and zoning, God's not making any more dirt.

So I gotta be very cautious about what industrial means in this residential area.

And because it's not clear, I want to be very precise on the record that I have some issues with this case until this clarity.

Okay.

And um, and I can um ask the applicant to provide information for overall site, most specifically that project on the property on Shallford, and then kind of what their um transportation looks like or a vehicle access look like on the site.

Chairwoman Burrs, we are conjoining districts.

Were you about to mention add some to that question?

Is Alan Jones the applicant?

Yes.

Okay.

Have you connected?

We have a meeting on November 6th, he represents the owner, correct?

So we've we've had conversation.

I think if I recall and I apologize, I'm still reconnecting.

Um there are plans.

There were some questions regarding the usage.

Because I, if I'm not mistaken, the parcels that are to the right are also owned by the applicant.

That's correct.

And there's current note, there aren't any plans for development, which I was concerned about.

I'm like, there's a big blue dot, but you own all the parcels on each side, and I don't know what you're about to put on the main road in Shaliford.

And that's very and that's very important to me.

So I need more clarity on that.

So Mr.

Jones is here today.

Could you connect with him at the break?

You're in a cut high, we're talking about the podium.

Yeah, yeah.

Can you all well?

I think just for this particular meeting, it's just an education, but if you can connect with him at the break, so you all can set a time to meet.

I I don't need to connect I just need you to get those uh we've had a meeting about this.

I just need to put this on the record.

Um Karen, is there anything else on this?

No, sir.

Okay.

Um also uh Chairwoman Burns, I want to talk about the neighborhood Indian Hills, which is adjacent to this.

I know there was some misinformation that was sent out to the community on Agilha regarding an apartment complex.

Um, fortunately, I was away out of the country and could not respond, and it was Thanksgiving.

But uh there was information disseminated that there was an apartment complex with 79 units, and I just want to be for the record, because that was also discussed in our meeting that I also had issue with that, that we are waiting on some revisions from Allen to get back to go to the community.

But can you give clarity?

Um, and if you can remember what that case is, and it's on the map.

It is, it's and it's also for the record.

I want to say that it's also the same owner.

Is it not the is the same owner?

Okay, two separate things, but that's an impacted area, and that's gonna be coming to the planning commission in December, but I want to put to rest some misconceptions that's being spread about that project by some very anxious neighbors.

Um could you bring some clarity to that, please, briefly?

Yes, the property is um so Shallowford Road is kind of making the curve on the western side where says vacant land just below vacant land.

There is a property um that is there's a current zoning request on there to rezone to RN3, which does allow attached housing, including apartments.

The request is for I believe 79 uh units.

Um the applicant did provide some conditions related to that.

Staff recommendation um has gone out.

The staff um has additional conditions so that are recommended to planning commission to add to that.

Um I believe right now the proposed conditions for the site include um access off of ag you know related to buffering, access, height, massing of structure, so related to the concern about an apartment complex, I believe.

So related to the concern about an apartment complex, I believe one of the staff recommended conditions is no more than four units in a massed structure.

Would that be described as it be described?

Yeah, it could take different forms, but it is not a 79-unit building.

We were trying to describe what is shown on the site plan, and that condition is intending to say you could have four, you could have four, you could have four.

It's not 79 in one building.

But I want to let the community know and be rest assured that we are we meet on a regular carrying regarding uh development things that are compatible, and we have a really great work in relationship with developers as we urban plan for a very specific area that needs development that needs a grocery store, and amongst other things.

So we're very particular in District 5 about what is compatible that complements the historic residential fabric of that community, just as with Fort Wood or St.

Elmo, uh District 5 is no different, and I've been on the record with my issues with apartment complexes and different multifamily units and residential areas that do not complement the single family residential communities that are there.

Okay?

Yes.

All right, thank you very much.

I think you'll thank you very much.

Any other comments about that case before we move on to the next one, which is also in District 5, uh 0169.

Um this one is a case that also going to IH zone.

It's 4272 Bonnie Oaks Drive.

Um the front portion zone to commercial zone CC commercial corridor zone, the back portion is zone the RN16 residential neighborhood zone.

Um the applicants proposing landscaping and construction supply storage and sales.

Um the applicant proposed conditions limiting the hours of operation and allowable uses.

Um, and I'm gonna move through these because this is going to be touched on again.

Um, and just to orient this is the portion of Bonnie Oaks Drive west of 153, uh, the railroad track, it abuts the railroad track right of way, and South Chick Creek is um just off the map to the west.

There's no recent zoning history for the site, but uh across Bonnie Oaks to the northwest.

There was a request to rezone property to M1 manufacturing that's similar to the IH zone.

Um Planning Commission staff recommended deny, planning commission recommended deny manufacturing improved commercial, and then city council denied that application.

The um staff found that so staff recommended denial, and I'll kind of uh highlight one of the reasons.

The applicants proposed uses of light in general industrial offices, outdoor storage yards, and places of worship could also be a light industrial, except for one use, which is the general industrial use, and that's defined in the zoning ordinance, the manufacturer, fabrication, processing, destruction of any article.

I'm gonna kind of skim read this.

Um, in general, industrial uses may produce noise, vibrations, illumination, or particulate that's perceptible to adjacent land users, land users, and staff's concern with the proximity of residential on Chickamauga Avenue was that particular use in general.

So staff recommended um denial.

There was an opposition president planning commission.

There was quite a bit of discussion about this case at Planning Commission.

Planning Commission recommended approval with the hours of operation limited to between 7 a.m.

and 6 p.m.

in allowable uses.

Um because of the discussion at Planning Commission, where the applicant confirmed the type of use they wanted to do.

Um we had some additional discussion with the applicant after the meeting to note again the concern about this general industrial use heading to council just to be aware that this is a concern.

So there are updated conditions provided by the applicant.

So this is intending to limit those heavy industrial uses a little bit further to help with that compatibility with that residential development along Chickamauga Avenue.

So this is not in the updated conditions or not in the ordinance.

We are requesting they be added.

Um the applicant is here, and this is also their request.

So the updated conditions again um talk about the outdoor storage yard use shall be further limited to storage and sales of landscaping and construction materials.

Gets pretty specific there, and notes that typical equipment used in loading and unloading of these materials.

This has been reviewed by LDO.

They find this to be an enforceable condition.

So it would be staff's request to be able to amend the zone the ordinance before council to update the ordinance with these conditions on it.

This is more restrictive than what is currently in the ordinance on the December 9th agenda.

The ordinance amendment would require us to act on December 9th.

I believe it could either be added to the ordinance and be reposted in time for the meeting, or it can be done as an amendment, however, you would choose.

So you can amend it when it comes on the agenda next week.

We can approve it and then propose an amendment.

Gotcha.

Thank you for the clarity.

A motion, yeah, motion.

Yeah.

A motion to amend.

Okay.

So leave it as is and then follow up with a motion to amend.

Next on next week.

But was the staff recommendation to approve this with the conditions or the staff recommendation was to deny the particular concern.

Can you say that one more time, please?

You said there were if you go back to the next screen.

You said there were additional.

Keep going.

These are the updated conditions.

That's correct.

After the updated conditions, was the staff recommendation still to deny?

We don't provide it's this one's a little off cycle.

We don't provide a recommendation.

The applicant with planning commission just was discussing the uses on the site.

And so with transparency with council in this discussion, just noted that that general industrial use is still out there.

Right.

And so that's what these updated conditions are limiting that general industrial use to the uses they're proposing.

So we don't have a specific recommendation.

The applicant can speak to it more fully.

The first two conditions did come from the applicant, and yes, I believe it is to be a good partner to the neighbors, and that's how they run their business.

And I do again, similar to what we just discussed on Shaliford, you know, we have a lot of requests to put industrial things in the middle of residential areas.

And I don't have a lot of land to develop what the recommendation is for the South Corridor in the Chattanooga plan where it says retail and different things that we're trying to do in the Highway 58 area.

So I'm concerned, I have some concern about this.

I do know that this is a landscaping company.

Now, prior to them purchasing, I will tell you what they did do.

They upgraded the property, they repainted it, and they screened it in.

And I'm and I'm satisfied with that because it brings some curb appeal to that Bonnie Oaks area that had not had it before.

But I need to be reassured that whatever their the nature of their business is, because we already have a train over there.

I live there's Hillcrest Heights behind it, and I live directly behind in Cherokee Woods, and we're already disturbed by the airport and the trains.

So I'd like before I proceed with this, I like to understand because there has to be a purpose in them adding a time frame because of what they're doing.

We'll still be making noise.

I don't care if it's from 7 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

noise is noise any time.

My grandmother sleeps at noon.

So I'd like more information about the nature of the work and the impact of their business to the quiet enjoyment of those residential areas.

I will ask the applicant to follow up specifically about that item.

And so just for the record, uh, this is not a yes for me, but that I am I'm leaning um in support if we could get some little bit more information about how what their impact will be to the quiet enjoyment of those neighborhoods, particularly Hillcrest Heights.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And so this will be on the agenda for next week.

Do you think you have time to talk to the before?

Um I have not actually had a conversation with the applicant, which but it which is not my preference.

Um I would recommend that between now and Friday that we uh coordinate a call or on Tuesday, I'll make a motion to defer until the uh 2026.

So get more time.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I see no other lights, so we're gonna move on to item J, please.

Um, 170.

I'm sorry.

I've oh uh 0167.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um I will say 170.

I did not flag, it did have it didn't work.

I didn't have any questions, and I've talked to you to the applicant, so we're gonna be able to do that.

I believe they've worked through um so 167 is a rezoning at 1309 Chamberlain Avenue to rezone from the RN15 residential neighborhood zone, the TRN3 traditional residential neighborhood zone with conditions and the applicants proposed condition maximum four units and maximum building height of 35 feet.

Um the sites primarily surrounded by RN15 zoning, so that is the um old R1 zoning with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, which is the um the a prevalent single family detached zoning in the urban core, and then north of the site and uh along Duncan, there's RN3 and TRN3.

So you can kind of see the pattern along Duncan's changed a little bit.

It's got um higher intensity and density uses.

The site surrounded by a mix of residential uses, including single unit detach, two unit, and multi-unit residential.

Um the multi-unit residential is there four homes on one lot, so this is um some discussion about it at Planning Commission.

So that is multi-unit residential, they're legal non-conforming, um, but just noting that that pattern is there, even though it shows as the RN15.

This is the site.

Um the applicant had a revised a site plan during the process.

This is the um revised site plan showing three new two-story units and keeping an existing building to the rear of the property.

Um apparently there's a resident that is uh there and the desire to maintain that structure.

So staff found that the proposed um development form of four detached units on one lot does not align with the zoning ordinance approach to which is generally um attached units.

So the applicant wants to have detached units for detached units on one lot.

Most of the zoning ordinances um the zoning structure has attached units, uh, multiple uh variations of attached units.

So this is detached units, and the applicant needs the TRN3 zone to have detached units.

So the zone comparison, and then I kind of have switched over here, but this might be helpful.

The applicant wants multi-unit dwellings.

The applicant wants four dwellings on the property.

If you go to TRN3 and go all the way to the end, multi-unit dwellings pops up.

So the applicant would like that TRN3 zone.

Staff is recommending the TRN1 zone, which was four unit dwellings, those are attached.

So very similar, the TRN3 zone is where the detached unit possibility comes up.

Um so staff recommended the TR and went TRN1 zone to allow the four attached units, um, and felt that that was more appropriate at the location and generally more supported by the plan.

There was opposition present by neighbors on this section of the street.

The street does dead end um to the west, so had um feedback from people on this block.

Um just noting that um they felt it was too intense.

There's a retaining wall there, concerns about transit folks, and just noting kids play in the street.

This says um lots of discussion at planning commission about this case.

Um planning commission found that the form um shown on the site plan.

Um they supported that form and the zone to go with it.

So planning commission's recommending the TRN three zone with the two conditions, maximum four units, three new additional units, and the existing unit to remain, and maximum building height of 35 feet.

Councilman Elliott, this is in your district.

Did you need any further information or discussion?

No, ma'am.

We are um in active conversations with neighborhood about this.

We've met with Alan already and Allenville lookout.

We may have a neighborhood meeting Sunday if you can make it.

I don't know yet.

Um to try to work out some compromises with this.

And so we're actively working with those neighbors, and so we're good.

Okay, very good.

All right, I see no other lights regarding this matter.

Karen, thank you for that final presentation.

I know you have a few uh an ordinance to amend some zoning stuff.

Um there are basically three sections here.

Um two are very similar.

It's introducing a um definition for a use.

First one's residential facility um indoor only, and then places uh that is a special exception permit in the CC commercial corridor zone, and that's it to the use matrix.

So we had a zoning case recently along Brainerd Road.

And that led to a broader discussion about reception facilities.

So this the language in the definition says the reception facility indoors shall have no outdoor gathering places, such as decks, balconies, covered areas, and patios, and the parking lot should not be used for outdoor gathering places, and no outdoor use of amplified sound systems.

And some of this we had borrowed from a prior tool in the former zoning ordinance.

And so this is a recommendation from Planning Commission to add that into the zoning ordinance.

The second is drive-through facilities standalone.

So this would be like a scooter's coffee or Dunkin' Donut that does not have any sit down, no places to sit down.

We have drive-through facilities as an accessory use when you have a sit-down restaurant or like a McDonald's, but we didn't have a zone.

We did not have a definition of all I do is drive through and get food.

So we're adding that definition in, adding it as uses in the zoning ordinance and adding it to the use matrix.

So this is something we worked with the LDO team on to make sure we got this right.

We're saying they're not eating and drinking establishments, there's something else.

And then we added standards for it.

Because we already had standards for a drive-through accessory use, we just cut and pasted those and used those for the standards for the drive-through facility.

And so these are trying to address that all you're doing is having a business and there's a lot of activity because you're driving.

And so we're just moving those over.

And then the third item is so this is a little bit of detail.

The maximum size of detached or attached accessory dwelling units are 800 square feet citywide, and there's no minimum on-site parking requirement.

So if you have a small unit in the form based code, um that so if you have a 600 square foot unit in the form-based code outside of the areas that don't require parking, you would still be required to park.

And so one of the things we brought up at Planning Commission in October was the ability to say if you have units less than 800 square feet in the form-based code, um, where you normally would be required to have a parking space to reduce the parking to a certain limit.

Planning commission said zero that we need smaller units in our our downtown area, and this is a way to incentivize those.

And so uh came back in November with a recommendation, excuse me, with a draft resolution to reduce the parking for units less than 800 square feet in these zones, multi-unit living zones to have no required parking.

Uh Planning Commission confirmed that wish with some wordsmithing at Planning Commission.

So after planning commission, we're writing the final resolution and looking at this language to making sure we had that right.

Um we noted um that we had a little bit of confusion as staff, and really I think it revolves around the um horizontal property regime, HPR development, which we have brought up before that is a prevalent use, and we've been addressing different ways.

And so this one we feel is not ready coming out of planning commission.

We're kind of you know on a timeline.

So we are meeting on this this week, um, and we'll follow up with more information.

Not that this information's not accurate.

We would just need to make sure that there's not an undatend consequence or we're not missing something else, but we'll follow up with a specific email prior to next Monday, and then if it is not ready, we would just note that at the time.

The intent we feel is right.

Planning commission confirmed that they felt that this is also a good way to incentivize smaller units, hopefully, more affordable units in our in our um downtown area.

We just kind of have the technicality of do we have the language right in the form-based code to make sure we're getting there, and so we will follow up um by Monday.

Great.

Councilwoman Dotley.

Oh, thank you so much, madam chair.

Uh given that farm based code is majority, you know, district seven, a little bit of district two, of course, and eight.

But I'm trying to understand.

So if it's 800 square feet of list, there's no parking requirement.

Is that what you're saying?

Currently you're required to provide um one space per unit.

And so um, but elsewhere around the city, if you have an ADU, you don't have to provide parking.

And so one form in an 800 square foot unit could take in this area would be I have something that looks like a house and I have something behind it that looks like an ADU.

And that's not uncommon, but those ADUs still have to park.

And so we're trying to tackle those, but we also have attached units where someone could do um, you know, five or ten or more units that are smaller units.

And so if you have a larger unit, you still have to park.

If you have an 850 square foot unit, you'd have to park or a thousand square foot.

But we're trying this, we're thinking this would incentivize smaller units and incentivize what we think of is looks like an ADU, but in form-based code, and because of um the parking standard, they're not getting a parking reduction for that.

And so we're thinking this is a tool to help do that.

One thing we did talk about with planning commission is we could follow up in six months to say, is this working?

Does it has it are we having more units that are smaller?

And then also, or maybe it's a tool that no one uses and it doesn't matter.

So we're um I I'm happy to commit to following up in six months and a year to say this is being used, this is how it's working or not, but this is just kind of another tool in the tool belt to see can we get you know smaller units, more production of smaller units in the urban area.

So the intent is not for because in my mind, just because I know there are such that's such constrained parking in this area.

Yes.

So then the question really just becomes why are they going to park when they have a car, regardless of the size of the unit.

So I would like to continue to follow up with you about this particularly because we already have a mini old issues with parking as is.

So I don't want to, you know, support something that's gonna cause further issues as we continue to develop in our downtown core.

I will follow up and it could be that um we need more time than next week and we would just prepare.

We're not in a rush.

We're just thinking of this as a tool, and so I will share the map with you and then um I'm happy to talk to you about that because it it's intended.

We already don't allow park uh don't require parking in quite a bit of the form-based code, but these are those more fringe areas shown on the map.

But I'll share that with you with um parcels and that'll help too, and then I'll follow up with you.

But again, we're not in a rush.

Um, this was just um you know, one of those things that we had identified as a possibility that planning commission was interested in also.

Okay, right.

Thank you so much, Karen.

Thank you, Matt.

And Chairwoman Hill.

I think that uh Madam Chair Burrs and Karen deserve a little bit of a merit badge for how to wake people up at the end of a two-hour agenda meeting.

Talk about parking matters.

We're back.

Thank you.

I I too would like some one-on-one time about this.

Um in particular because um form-based code projects don't typically come in front of council.

Um, and so we need to really know and also you know, our our communities don't have the say that they do in a regular zoning conversation.

So looking forward to learning more.

Thank you.

Since we're not in a rush, then I guess my recommendation at this point, since we as staff have a few um kind of nuts and bolts questions too.

I guess that my recommendation at this point would be to not act on this section of the resolution um next Tuesday, and that would give us time to have kind of a thoughtful consideration over the next few weeks and provide information about it.

Okay.

Sounds good.

That sounds good.

Any other comments, council on any of the cases?

Okay.

Um just as a reminder, you you should have received the applications that will be coming before the planning commission on December 8th.

Um those came to your email box.

I encourage you to look over those and scan for your district.

It's a good opportunity, especially if you anticipate some opposition to either show up at those meetings or listen to them.

So you'll you'll have a heads up four weeks out as to what's going to be coming before us.

And if there's nothing else, Madam 615, please.

Okay.

Uh we will recess until 615.

We have an attorney client.

Welcome back everyone.

We are ready to move into the voting portion of our meeting.

Madam Clerk.

Final reading.

Item A, please.

In ordinance to meet in Chattanooga City Code.

Chapter 11, Article 7, Junk and Second Hand Dealers, Section 11216 Definitions.

Council, we have a motion.

Move to approve.

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Madam Clerk, let's go with B C and D as a package, please.

Item B.

In ordinance closing and abandoning a portion of the unopened right away in the 7400 block of Sonia Lane is detailed on the attached maps sub certain conditions.

Item C and ordinance closing and abandoning the unused rail right away of a formal narrow gauge railroad operated as part of the city's railway system in the 200 block of North Arch and Off as detailed on the attached maps.

Item D, in ordinance closing and abandoned portion of the unopened alley in the 2200 block of East 19th Street as detailed on the attached maps submit to certain conditions.

Motion to approve.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Planning items E and F as a package, please, Madam Clerk.

Item E.

In ordinance to amend Chattanooga City Code, part two, chapter 38, the Chattanooga zoning ordinance as adopted by ordinance number 14137 on July 23rd, 2024 to add clarity zoning map interpretations for right-of-way abandonments and add as a permitted use one unit attached or detached dwelling in the CNN C and C N T zones.

Item F, in order to amend Chattanooga City Code, part two, chapter 38, the Chattanooga zoning ordinance as adopted by ordinance number 14137 on July 23rd, 2024.

More specifically, Article 2 definitions, Article 8, special purpose zones, Section 3838, FW Floodway, Section 3839, FH flood hazard, and Article 18, non-conformities, Section 3898, non-conforming structure.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Do I have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Ordinance has under first reading item 8A, please.

And ordinance closing and abandoned sanitary sewer and easement in the 8,000 block of votes and drive beginning zero feet from MH number S130031.

Then it's 1400 feet to MH number S 130 J 016 for a total of 1400 linear fee tax map number 13001.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with a proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Item B, please.

In ordinance to amend Chattanooga City Code, part two, chapter 38 zoning ordinance.

So as to reason properties located at 3916, 3920, and 3926, Murray Hills Drive from RN16 residential neighborhood zone to IMU industrial mixed use zone submit to certain conditions.

Thank you.

Council, this is in District 5, and we have had a request by the applicant to withdraw the application.

Can I get a motion?

Oh motion to approval.

Withdraw.

Second, thank you.

Thank you, Council.

We have a motion on the floor to withdraw this item with a proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion to withdraw passes.

Item C, please.

In ordinance to amend Chattanooga City Code, part two, chapter 38 zone, so as to rezon property located at 2802 Curtis Street from RN15 residential neighborhood zone to TRN2 zone.

Vice Chairwoman Null.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to ask for a deferment on this until I think we're going to be out the last two weeks of December.

So let's move it to the first um, yes, January the 6th.

Uh, because I did drive out of property yesterday and I talked with Mr.

Murphy, which is here on the phone.

And um, because it is not connected to a neighborhood association, I have to do some land work and knock some doors.

All right.

All right, thank you.

So I make a motion to defer until January the um 6th.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to defer this item until January 6th, 2026 with a proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments?

All in favor, opposed.

Motion to defer passes.

Item D, please.

In orderness, I'm in Chattanooga City Code Part 2, chapter 38 zoning, Morning.

So it's a reasonable property located at 2003 Wilcox Boulevard from RN15 residential neighborhood zone to TRN3 traditional neighborhood residential zone sub and service conditions.

Okay, Madam Chair.

Uh I am once again going to defer this, and this right here is just oh Lord help me, Jesus.

Okay, so I was going to defer uh because I had asked for him to be here today, but he could not because he said his wife is pregnant, and so the babies to be delivered at any time.

So we're not gonna be here for December.

So January, I'm going until the first Tuesday in February, which is I'm sorry, I should have already had that date pulled up.

Okay, Council Family, somebody can help if they can get to a quick.

Okay.

First Tuesday.

February the third.

Thank you.

Okay, now wake up.

Surely somebody has a count.

I make a motion to defer until February the third.

Can I get a second on that council?

All right, we have a motion on the floor to defer this item until February 3rd, 2026 with a proper second.

Do you have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Okay, resolutions.

Now we've had a lot of discussion about this.

We have several uh we have three, at least three potential amendments to some of these.

If we can group those, that would be preferable.

Uh I'm happy to read them all off if you all are in agreement to it.

I have four.

Um, get A read into the record.

Okay, and then uh we can go from there.

All right, I uh item A, please.

A resolution of the city council of the city of Chattanooga 10 C approving the economic impact plan for the North Ga Mall Infrastructure Project.

Okay, so we're gonna give the floor to councilwoman burrs.

Okay.

So I have I'd like to make a motion to make the following amendments.

Well, so let's actually let's go ahead and get a motion on the floor to approve this item.

I'll make a motion to approve this item.

Second, second, okay.

All right, and I'd like to make a motion um for the following amendments.

Go for it.

Okay, uh amendment number one.

Um I'm just reading off for the record, Phil.

Yes, the what was drafted.

Um the resolution, okay.

The resolution to provide that the approval of the economic impact plan is conditioned upon no portion of the tax increment incentive being applied to pay costs of waterline improvements unless city council subsequently approves the application of the tax increment incentive for such purpose.

Second one is to amend section seven of the Northgate Mall Infrastructure Project Economic Impact Plan to replace 9.2 million with 8.7 amend the proposed resolution to provide that the approval is conditioned upon the development agreement requiring that the base tax amount retained by the city be increased whenever the city's tax rate is increased by the same percentage as the increase.

And that's all for that one.

Yep, and then the last one will be on the next.

It'll be on the yes, sorry.

Yes, that's all for the for that one.

Thank you so much, Councilwoman Burrs.

So council, we have a motion on the floor to amend as read by councilwoman burrs.

Can I get a second?

To amend.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to amend with a proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments?

I guess I do have one clear fine question.

Uh Sharita, is this the resolution that needs amend amended and not B because the B talks about the agreement between the city and the Industrial Development Board and the Industrial Development Board is the one that's gonna develop the development plan?

So the EIP and the three amendments, we do know that the developer has an issue with one of the amendments.

So if we could break out the one that's related to the property tax base increases, we'd like to break that one out for discussion based on the developer wanting to provide some clarification around that item.

Okay, but my my question is still do these amendments apply to to the economic impact plan or to the next item, the agreement that goes to the industrial development board.

These three would apply to the approval of the economic impact plan.

Yeah, just the three.

The fourth one would apply just to the last one, but these three should are appropriately on this resolution.

And these are amendments to the resolution that is before the council right now.

Yes.

Correct.

Approving the economic impact plan.

So Sharita, you were saying that of those three that council members just read into the record that the applicant would be interested in further discussion at this meeting.

At this meeting related to the increase in the property tax base, because all of the calculations to date have been made on have been based on a stable property tax base.

And what's proposed now is a step up with property tax increases of that base, which eats into the increment.

And so again, it's the developer would like to respond to that.

Councilman Burrs, would you like to go ahead and have the counselor or the the applicant respond to that, or do you want to break it out and then have that conversation?

I'd like to amend my amendment and um amend the resolution with the first two items, which are the waterline improvements applicable to the incentive for such purpose if we decide at a later time and then the 99.2 to 8.7.

If we can approve those, then we can have a discussion on the third item.

Okay.

All right.

So I'd like to make a motion to amend my amendment.

I have the question first.

Can we get a second on that council?

And my amendment.

Yeah, my yes.

What are we amending?

We're amending the new time.

Correct.

Why don't we withdraw the amendment?

Withdraw the amendment or draw my first amendment.

Okay, I'd like to withdraw my first amendment and replace it.

Just withdraw the amendment.

Withdraw the amendment.

Okay.

So uh I'd like to make a new amendment.

Um with the following items for the resolution to provide that the approval of the economic impact plan is conditioned upon no portion of the tax increment and sent them being applied to pay costs of waterline improvements.

And you have the rest of the copy, and that section seven of the project amount 9.2 be replaced with 8.7.

Thank you.

Can we get a second on that, Council?

Second.

Okay.

So we've got some folks queued up that I think have questions about this amendment.

Councilman Henderson, are you good?

Councilwoman Dotley.

Thank you so much, madam chair.

So my question is so the 8.7 billion, I understand.

I think that was explained prior to.

So my question is about the no water line.

So that amendment is saying that we're we're not gonna help with the water line.

Is there what I'm here?

We're I'll let Sharita explain.

I think I know the answer, but I've sure that it come from you.

Okay.

So two of your colleagues have issues with city tax increment going towards public infrastructure that will be dedicated to a different entity.

It will not be city-owned infrastructure.

Now the caveat means it also means the city would not be responsible for servicing or maintaining that said infrastructure, but but nonetheless, it is a results, it's an amendment that basically says we support the project.

We understand the water lines are part of the project, we will include them, but we do not want city tax increment to be used towards the repayment to the developer for those lines.

But in order for city staff to apply for any outside funds, those funds typically have to come to a municipality or a public entity.

And so the developer would not be able to pay for to seek grant funding for that infrastructure.

The city would be able to, if the water lines are left in as part of the infrastructure project.

So it's leaving the water lines in, saying we're not using an increment, but at the end of the day, if the developer wants to come back to the city, if we're not able to pursue grants for it, the developer could come back and ask this council to fund water at a later date.

So it's leaving an option open.

Yeah, I'm not I'm not a fan of that.

So I just I just need to be clear because it's just I just my kind of first time hearing about well first thing I know is that Hickson is a part of the city of Chattanooga, and I think Councilman Davis stated it best originally.

They have been paying taxes, and those tax dollars need to go to an infrastructure, even though I know that's part of Hickson's, I'm just telling you, I'm just saying, it's part of Hickson's utility, the Hickson Utility District.

It is still servicing Chattanoogans at the end of the day.

And so that's my take on that.

Is that if we're gonna approve it, let's just approve it, it's 8.7 million dollars.

That's that is this is an equity issue for Hickson.

You know, they've been paying taxes for years.

This is when I went to Councilman Davis' meeting on the Sunday before, I think it was Sunday before last.

One of the residents said the question we've always asked in Hickson is what is the city doing for Hickson?

Um, this is us saying this is what we're doing for Hickson because they have paid taxes, and there is a point in time where Northgate was making over a million dollars.

We didn't not take their money and say, well, y'all, we're not gonna, y'all using that water line, we're gonna get y'all that money back.

We didn't have we didn't do that.

We took the money.

So, and put it into our general fund for uses for everyone in this city.

And so that is, I'm just I just I think that one just threw me off a little bit because it's a project, it needs to be done.

And as one of the residents called it, I don't know if it would, they were a fan of it in the meeting, but they called it, you know, this could be their new downtown Hickson, you know, just like we have approved the the end, the BN TIF, we approve the stadium TIFF.

This is opportunity for us to do do that work in Hickson too.

So if we're gonna do, and I mean, considering the cost of those things, you know, this is $8.7 million of over what 20 years?

Yeah, I think.

Yeah, so it's it's not a you know, huge, I mean, any money that we have to put toward another project is is is a big deal.

But this is the opportunity for the city to make a a pretty decent loud investment into Higson.

Um, that is well overdue.

So that I just had to make sure I was I was understanding that the amendment would then say we're going to approve, it's three lines.

It's the sewer line, storm water, and then the water line, is that right?

Sure.

Three lines.

So the city said we're gonna pay for two.

And then if y'all find out that we all can't get that grant, come back and ask us for three.

Is that what am I?

That's essentially what it's okay.

So come back and ask us for three, just in case you don't get that money.

But if you get it, then don't come back, then y'all ain't got to come back.

Or we could say we're gonna approve it.

And if, because we have time over the increment, so if all three of if we approve it as a package, y'all get the grant money, then we can just roll it into the increment and not worry about it.

If it's that am I am I letting out?

Okay, I just wanted to kind of understand that part.

8.7 million, I get that.

Okay, I just want to be clear about what's happening here.

Okay, thank you.

It would be the gravy on the pop rows.

Right.

It'd be the gravy owner.

And so it'd just be so it'd just be something extra.

So that way, so instead of them having to come back, we will already preferly we'll get it and we'll already have it and we can just move forward instead of having to come back and have another deep conversation about what kind of water is going through the water line.

Correct.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair.

See, we got a bright board right now.

Uh who's on live, councilman Clark.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to echo some of the thank you for that was my question.

Um, I just want to be clear that I'm not for any of the amendments, so I won't be voting tonight to support any of the amendments tonight.

I do want to point out that on behalf of the people of District Five, uh District Three, which is two two to three miles from my home across the dam, is the most robust commercial retail development to my district where I don't have it on Highway 58.

And Hicksonians or Chattanoogans, we added them to our city.

And regardless, if we if the Hickson utility, which is a private company, so is Tennessee American Water Company.

It's okay to support a system that supports taxpayers who need water.

Um and I will not be supporting taking that out, but I do want to say that this is a community development project for the city.

Well, we keep saying Hicks and Hicks and Hickson, or we think this is a retail bailout.

It's not.

It's actually we're setting a precedence for other dilapidated corridors, including in my district in District 8 and District 5.

Yes.

The great district on our you know, and so I want to I want to be clear that that's the purpose of this incremental financing.

Like give them the money so because we're not paying for it.

We're not the city of Chattanooga are not developers, but these Hicksonians, is that what they call y'all after Jeff?

I don't know, Hicksonians.

Chattanoogans, they are Chattanoogans, and I just think it defeats the these amendments, no offense to the authors.

I think it defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do in development in an area that could use it.

It's not a it's not a uh a mall bell.

I don't know that that's some of the sentiment.

We're trying to help the rich people.

No, we're not.

We're trying to help people in a very populated area that is adjacent to a lot of food deserts in District 8 and District 9 that depend on the development, unfortunately, five or six miles away.

And so to my colleagues who have urban districts, including a district six residents, please consider that development is just in Higgs, and it's just not for uh Jeff Davis.

It is for all of us, and it should be a roadmap for the Department of Economic Development of what we should be doing, CBL in other places, because we cannot sustain ourselves on old models of retail development, or you're gonna be like a blockbuster, you're gonna be out of business.

And we need a company like CBO, which is publicly traded out of our city to survive, and thank God they're providing a public infrastructure that we're not paying for, and that the other people they're not charging that are benefiting from.

There's a bunch of other companies that have a ton of money that could pay Hickson utility for that water line, and they're not.

So we should actually thank them and say, Thank you for being so gracious for fixing our water system, and we're not like this is asinine for us to have this discussion, give them the TIFF, develop in Northgate, and do it again in other districts.

I support this as is without the amendments, and I'd like for us that I don't have any questions on it.

Uh the baseline, it eats at the increment which defeats the purpose of them asking for money.

It's it's counterproductive.

Let's approve it.

Congratulations to Hickson.

Go spend money in Hickson.

It generates sales tax revenue for us to develop in my district and in yours too.

All right, thank you.

That's all I got.

All right.

Councilman Elliott.

Uh I echo a lot of what my two colleagues have said.

Uh, Councilman Burns, I appreciate the sentiment.

I really do.

It's not personal, but you know, I think when councilwoman um Dotley eloquently put, you know, we haven't done much investment in Hickson over the years.

And it would behoove me to ask and kick and scream for investment in District 9 and shun another one of my colleagues' communities, um, who's just trying to breathe life into the epicenter.

This is the heart of the economic um energy in that community.

And so I feel like we'll find ourselves a few years down a road saying, hey, the water pipes need to be fixed when we had an opportunity to fix it, and we're not tapping into the general fund.

I think that's something we have to realize.

We're not putting any direct dollars up.

We're going to maintain, we're going to continue to get the $500,000 in property taxes we get from this.

Everything extra based on the growth that I hope we uh will definitely see.

Um it's only gonna be adding to that community.

And um, you know, I don't think I have anything else to say, but um I I can't support this resolution, this amendment.

Sorry.

Councilman Harvey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I guess for clarity's sake, I do want to uh make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

So if we don't have a word this, if we don't vote for the resolution regarding the water lines, I'm sorry, back that up.

If we do vote in support of the amendment for the water lines that closes the door for any grant options.

No, actually that closes the correct that closes the option for any increment to be used towards the water.

That basically says you're voting for the item, the increment can be used for the two the two pillars of the infrastructure, but not the third, without coming back to this body to ask for funding for the third, should grant financing fall apart.

But it does not close that door to applying for and accepting grant money.

Correct.

It does not.

Okay.

All right.

Um and my last thing is I am curious to hear both sides of the last amendment um proposition uh about the tax base, both from councilwoman burrs and then from the developer on the why not.

If I could hear both of those, I would really appreciate that.

Okay.

Whoever wants to go first.

So on the question, let's see, let's start with our TIFF attorney on the property tax-based piece.

And then we'll have the developer come up.

I'm gonna channel like I'm a developer for a second because they've been working me over in the break.

But I mean their main concern, I mean, we and I was talking to a little bit to council member Henderson about this is when you do a TIFF, and that you if the base is gonna jump periodically on unknown years when there's a tax increase, it's a whole lot harder to do financial projections, and and often the lenders are willing to cut you a little bit of slack in the f earlier years because they know they're gonna get the benefit of the increases in the later years.

So it makes it harder for them to do their financing.

It's not impossible to do their financing as I told Councilmember Henderson it it I can't tell you this would prevent it, but it will make it more challenging.

The thing that they also would say is like you know, and I shared my legal opinion with Phil, and it you know, I know I haven't had a chance to talk about it, but we're not letting them use the sales tax for the stormwater.

As a result, there's not enough increment to cover the stormwater.

So they're already, unless there's significant, and they we know they're planning on tearing down the mall, so you're gonna take a step back.

We already told them sorry, despite that, you're still gonna have to pay base taxes, and they've agreed to that.

The 522 is gonna always come to the city, so you're not gonna take a step back there.

But what they've um what they're saying is look, but that makes it even worse for us because we're already in the hole about a million six, a million seven on the stormwater because you won't let us use the sales taxes on it, and now if we lose more because the base is going up, that hurts us even worse.

So um they're um they're willing to live with the nine two going to eight seven based on the third party report.

They're not excited about the water, they will live with it.

If they have, they would really not like the the base tax increase, and but they can speak for themselves, but they probably get more worked up than I do because I'm on your side, so um, but they're glad to address it as well.

So um I don't think so.

So we're not debating at this point with the tax increase.

We're just debating the first two items.

The first two items.

So let's hold off on that until we kind of get this issue squared away.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Council on Burrs.

Uh coming full circle.

So thank thank you all for all the comments.

My intention for that first one about the water line was to keep that incentive alive to go after that other grant funding.

Because as we have many conversations, we talked about why are we not thinking outside of the box?

Where are there other ways of collecting that money?

So I feel like I'm more on the same page with you all than I'm on a different page.

It was really to bring light to the fact that there's some other ways of bringing funding sources in, so it does the burden isn't all on the city, especially when it's in regards to somebody else's infrastructure that they will manage and then um make money off of, if you will, versus something that we might have access to and be able to manage.

So I that was my intent of that um of that amendment was to be more of an incentive to make sure that we're um seeking out other sources, and it and that wasn't the only option.

Us being responsible for the funding was not the only option.

So if I if that needs to be reworded differently, I I mean I have full faith in you, Sharita, that you're gonna go after funding sources wherever they're available, but I think as I said earlier, to have if you don't have it in writing, then it doesn't exist.

So to have something in writing to ensure that we've got that on the books or on the record, I think is important.

Um again, I'm not married to that wording.

I just wanted you all to understand the intent of why I said it, that I fully support Councilman Davis and had it did attend his um one of his meetings and agree with pretty much everything you all said that we have to be supportive of all of our districts, not just our own.

So that that's my comment, madam chair.

Okay.

Uh Councilman Henderson.

Thank you, madam chair, and I think that uh explanation of the water at least and my mind cleared up maybe some questions.

I I don't think, and sometimes we amend a resolution or ordinance to death to where nobody likes it.

And I think I think we are in general agreement that this needs to happen, that the mall needs to be redeveloped.

This infrastructure needs to happen.

Where I try to balance that is with fiscal responsibility, making it fair for the taxpayer, making it fair for the applicant.

That's that's where I'm coming down on.

Um I know that Tennessee American, when they have even into a new area, uh they give rebates every time someone hooks up, they give a rebate, there's money coming back.

I just felt like that there should be some type of money being refunded back so that the taxpayers weren't having to you know do the whole boat, but but that some of it would be coming back.

The thing about the property tax increase is looking out in the future as our needs grow and our service gets more expensive, trying to make sure that we accommodate our budget as well, so that here again, we're not we're not taking it out of the taxpayer's pocket in order to do this, but but as our revenues increase, and we asked our taxpayers to pay more for the services that are costing more that sort of everybody's on the level playing field.

That's the only reason I brought up about uh having that base jump, and I understand it might make it a little bit more difficult, but us, but I'm also trying to look out for our taxpayers, and so trying to hit this balance of what's fair to the taxpayers, what's fair to the applicant and the developer, and what's fair to the residents of Hickson and the surrounding area.

And that's where I'm coming down on is trying to figure out what's fair for everybody.

I'm glad we're having this discussion and this debate so that we can try to figure out where we need to be to be because I get you know, I've gotten emails and phone calls for and against uh completely against the TIFF.

Um I could say I support this TIFF.

There are some things that give me a little bit of heartburn about it that I've been trying to address to make this more uh to to me uh more fair, like I said, for the taxpayers and uh for the developer that that's going out and doing the work, putting in the infrastructure, and so that the businesses around it, uh and I think we need to come back to that uh looking at a business improvement district, the business around that's around this mall area in this loop are going to benefit as well.

Uh obviously more foot traffic's gonna be coming in or more traffic, period.

And so um, I I just look at how we can be fair physically uh physically responsible uh in addressing this.

So I I did have a concern about bundling all of the uh resolution or all the amendments together, so maybe we want to go back and take them one at a time.

We're trying to save time, but clearly it didn't work.

Well, it it it it obviously didn't work, and and I didn't really hear, you know, when we talked about it earlier, I didn't hear really any opposition against that, and so one would assume that everybody would have been okay with it, but if if they're not, and that's fine, maybe we just need to take one at a time so that we don't get it to a point that it doesn't pass it off.

And I have seen that happen uh when we amend something to death.

So uh maybe we want to go back and take them one at a time.

I don't I don't think anybody's in opposition to the taking it from the 9.2 to the 8.7.

So maybe we start there and then uh see what happens.

Chair, chair, if I may respond on the I just wanted to make sure everyone understands on the property tax increase portion, and we covered this in our last meeting when um the chair actually asked about that 25 percent 25 percent of the increment that's held back every year, and so or yeah that's held back towards going into the TIP.

That 25% is held back for debt service.

Our current debt service is nine percent.

So that delta, that 16% is coming into the general fund.

And so again, every year with those increases, we're still holding back that 25%.

And as our debt changes, our debt service ratio changes, there's still a portion that's still coming to the city in the general fund to cover our general services.

So just something to think about as we talk about property tax increases.

We're still the city will still get its increases, just a small that percentage that comes out of the increment that gets withheld before the increment goes into pay prepaying repaying infrastructure.

So to put a finer point on that, I remember from the the large TIFF that we went through with the bin, we had that illustration of a dollar bill.

So 75 cents of every dollar will go toward this increment and paying down the investment in this project, and 25 cents will come to the city for us to use as we see fit, designated for uh debt service, but we only need nine cents of that right now.

Correct, thank you.

Okay, so council members, we put you in a sticky situation, friend asking you to just bundle it together.

And I want to say that we bundle these.

So this is not council members.

Do you want to withdraw again?

I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Okay, and I'm gonna uh make a motion to amend section seven of the Northgate Mall Infrastructure Project Economic Impact Plan to replace 9.2 million with 8.7 million.

Can I get a second on that?

Okay, council.

We have a motion to amend as read with a proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments about that specific amendment?

Seeing none all in favor of the amendment aye.

I all opposed to the amendment.

No, all right.

Do we have any other amendments we would like to do on this item?

Well, those would need to approve it.

And then if I can amend to that.

So let's talk about this sandwich we're gonna make.

Do we need to approve as amended and then go back and do it double time every time, or can we just amend amend them as a men if there's any other amendments, go through those amendments and then at the conclusion got that slice of bread.

We're just gonna keep adding toppings.

Okay.

Do we have any other motions to amend?

Councilman Henderson, do you intend to make a motion to amend councilman burst?

Okay, I do not okay.

All right, council.

We have amended this item with one amendment.

That amendment for your memory is to section seven to adjust the economic impact plan to 8.7 million, and that is based on the independent review.

All in favor.

Well, can I get a motion to approve as amended, please?

Thank you all.

Uh can I get a motion to approve as amended?

So move.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion on the floor to approve as amended with a proper second.

Any other questions or comments?

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion to approve as amended passes.

So we've got item A.

Okay.

Squared away.

Great work, everybody.

Adam Clerk, would you like to read item B?

Not would you like?

Please read item B whether you like to or not.

Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee approving intergovernmental financial assistance agreement between the city and the industrial development board of the city of Chattanooga.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with a proper second.

Do I have any questions or comments?

Do we have any amendments?

We did discuss one.

Do we have one?

I have no amendments.

Praise the Lord.

Okay.

All right, do so.

I have no questions or comments on this.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Remember that craft today, you all.

But I will add that I look forward to councilman Davis's resolution.

That's important to me.

Um, let's uh item C, please.

A resolution authorizing the administrative for the Department of Economic Development to enter into at least agreement with Diagnostic Radiology Consultants PA and substantially the form attached to these 173 square feet of space for an X-ray examination area at the city of Chattanooga Well Advanced Center with rent in the mountain $300 per month for a term of five years.

Councilwoman Chairwoman.

Praise the Lord.

I have no amendments.

I make a motion to approve.

Any questions or comments?

As a person who's had an X-ray at the Well Adventure Center, I fully support this item.

It's a major time saver for employees.

I thought you was getting ready to say something else.

Oh no, no, we're not gonna do that.

No, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Item D, please.

A resolution authorizing administrative for the Department of Economic Development to enter into a first agreement to exercise option to renew with Missionary Ridge Neighborhood Association Inc.

And substantially the form attached to lease approximately 2600 square feet of space at 36 Sheridan Avenue identified as tax map number 156 EB001.01 for an additional term of one year through December 16, 2026 for the rent of one dollar per term.

Can we approve?

We've got council, we've got councilman Elliott.

Uh Madam Chair, I would like to move to the furthest one week to December 9th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Council.

We have a motion on the floor to defer for one week until December 9th with the proper second.

Do you have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Motion passes.

Item E, please.

Resolution withdrawing, preserve Chattanooga's application at the applicant's request for the historic landmark designation located at 865 East Third Street, referenced as HLM 231 by the historic zoning commission from its meeting held on July 20, 2023.

Councilman Clark.

Is that correct?

Correct.

The applicant has requested to but our authority in not allowing that is irrelevant since they've they're withdrawing to move forward anyway.

Well that's the procedure you've set forth in the code here that you can withdraw.

Yeah.

And that we have to make it public when they do it.

We don't just make things go away.

Like the way we withdrew uh zoning case.

Gotcha.

So can I get a motion?

I move to approve.

Do we have any further conversation?

Do you have any other any conversation?

Any other questions, Councilman Clark?

No, I just I uh I did can may I make a public comment?

Absolutely.

This is the time for that.

Um I just I have grave concern.

Um this might not be the platform in this resolution to discuss that, but I do want to as we start talking about preservation, and this is a precedent, and I know there's our hands are tied on this.

Uh just for general purposes, I I will not I know they're withdrawing, but I will not be supporting yes to allow them to withdraw as a point of statement, and that we need to be a little bit more sorry, district eight, uh CSS.

Um I I have concern about us being involved in how we communicate with the school system and doing historic preservation inside of the city.

Okay.

Um so tonight I'll be although you all probably will accept the withdrawal.

I'll be uh voting no as a statement that I don't support the application withdrawal in support of historic preservation.

Okay, thank you very much.

Do we have any any other questions or comments?

All in favor, uh opposed, no.

We have one no motion passes to withdraw.

To withdraw, but it's not a motion to withdraw, it's a resolution withdrawing, so we didn't need a motion to withdraw.

We wouldn't want to withdraw the rest of the act.

All right, I'm gonna get a discussion.

Okay, that's what I'm gonna do.

Okay, Madam Clerk.

Let's take items F and G as a package, please.

Item excuse me.

A resolution to enter into an interlocal agreement with the City of Ribank to define shared responsibilities and cooperative efforts and general maintenance, project planning, and stewardship of stringer's reach to provide a high quality natural resource with recreational opportunities.

Item G, a resolution authorizing administrative for the Department of Parks and Outdoors to apply for and if awarded, accept a creative placemaking grant in the amount of $17,160 from the Tennessee Arts Commission with a match of $4,290 from the City of Chattanooga for the city stages project.

Councilman Henderson.

Move approval of nine uh F and G.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion passes.

Public works items H I and J, please, Madam Clerk, as a package.

Item H.

A resolution authorizing the administrator for the Department of Public Works for Contract Number T to 1010201.

Alton Park Connector Phase 1 to Kanye Industries LLC in the amount to 1,627,268 and 60 cents with a contingency contingency and amount of 162,726 and 86 cents for a total amount not to exceed $1,789,995 and 46 cents.

Item I, a resolution authorizing the appointment of Josh Perrin as a special police officer unarmed for the city of Chattanooga, Department of Public Works, LDO COS Division to perform duties especially limited to the performance of duties in his position as demolition abatement specialist.

Item J, a resolution authorizing the informant of Aaron Acom as a special police officer unarmed for the city of Chattanooga Department of Public Works, LDO COLS division to perform duties expressly limited to the performance of duties in his position as demolition abatement specialists.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion passes.

Wastewater items K, L, and M, please.

Item K.

A resolution authorizing the administrative for the Department of Wastewater to execute a project sell agreement and operations and maintenance agreement with Main Spring Energy Inc.

and substantially form attached for the purchase installation operation and maintenance of linear generated systems for an amount not to exceed $8.5 million on a sole source basis.

Item L, a resolution authorizing administrative for the Department of Wastewater to renew the on-call blanket.

Contract number W to 2006 201 sanitary sewer install and repair blanket contract for wastewater with price increases due to material and personnel cost escalation as attached for year four of four with Tally Construction Company in Rossville, Georgia for use by all departments for the annual amount of $4.5 million.

Item M, a resolution authorizing the administrative for the Department of Wastewater to increase blanket contract number PA 10079A with TNT concrete ink for paving and concrete repair or replacement contract number W24029201 in the amount of 3.5 million dollars, increasing the total contract amount of $5 million,618 dollars.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council, can I get a motion?

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor to approve items K, L, and M as a package.

All in favor?

All right.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

I'm now going to hand the chair over to Madam Vice Chair because the Eagle Scouts were expecting me a half an hour ago.

Okay.

Thank you all.

No, not no more.

Absolutely.

I told her to tax me one more time.

I know.

Can you sign this before you go or no?

I got the time today.

Madam Vice, I'd like to make a motion to remove the vice chair.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

Council family.

We've come to purchase it.

Mrs.

Tally, hello.

Good evening, Council.

Good evening.

I have 10 purchases recommended for approval this evening.

Um facilities, a four-year renewal quality mechanical has requested a 10% increase due to the increased cost of parts and labor.

The new estimated annual spend will be $731,500.

Public works has approved the increase.

Risk management, a new blanket agreement for insurance brokerage services.

This will be a four-year agreement not to exceed $1,800,000 annually.

The award will go to Author Jay Gallagher, RIS management as the best bid.

Parks and Outdoors, four-year renewal, conservation legacy has requested a 25% increase to the cost of labor and supplies.

The new estimated annual spend will be 183,750.

Parks and Outdoors has approved the increase.

Facilities, four year renewal.

WJ O'Neill has requested an 11% increase due to the increased cost of parts and labor.

The new estimated annual spend will be $738,500.

Public Works has approved the increase.

Purchasing year three renewal, Coca-Cola bottling has requested a three percent increase due to the cost of goods to manufacture products.

The new estimated annual spend will be 130,000.

Purchasing has approved the increase.

Source Technologies has requested a 4% increase due to the increased cost of raw materials, transportation, energy, and compliance expenses.

The new annual spend will be $2,24,800.

Wastewaters has approved the increase.

The new annual spend will be $1,734,876.

Wastewater has approved the increase.

Traffic operations, new blanket agreement for traffic sign blanks.

This will be a four-year agreement not to exceed $65,000 annually.

The award will go to U.S.

Standard Signed Company as the best bid.

Facilities.

Year three renewal.

Sherman Williams has requested a five percent increase due to the increased cost of paint material materials.

The new annual spend will be 105,000.

Public works has approved the increase.

Fire.

New contract agreement for firefighters protection equipment and repair parts.

This will be a four-year agreement not to exceed $250,000 annually.

The invitation to bid was sent to six suppliers as well as formally advertised.

Only one response was received.

The invitation was re-advertised and produced no additional bids.

The award will go to Safe Indicies as the best bid received.

We have a motion to approve with the proper second.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

Cali.

Okay, we've come to committee reports.

Okay.

Council Mahenderson.

Just ma'am, I have one.

All right.

We're gonna have a public safety committee meeting on January the 6th.

And we're gonna get an update from Chief Knowles about some strategies and positions and uh just updates from the from the fire department.

Thank you.

Councilman Davis.

No report, but thank you all for your support.

Well, you know, that's what we do.

We take care of family.

Council Maharve.

No report, but I am looking to schedule my first committee meeting after the new year.

Um an education session on a few things, so uh stay tuned.

Very exciting.

Education committee.

Um councilman Clark.

Oh, thank you, Madam Vice Chair, for this opportunity to speak under the chairwoman ship.

So blank up.

I do have a committee report.

Is that we had a uh meeting along with uh councilman Elliott in regards to the senior center at Glenwood about a couple weeks ago.

I can't remember.

Anyway, um, and I'm happy to report that uh our deputy um chief of staff with Darren and Cedric Kenson met with a group of community members, and we're pleased uh councilwoman burrs that we will be relocating the senior center back to the Eastgate Town Center, and we are in the works of retrofitting that for space that is comparable to them in our first committee meeting, Cedric, in January.

Uh I can't remember what day it is, but it's on the calendar.

What so what is it?

Anyway, our first committee meeting community development will be to discuss those plans in that potential rollout at the top of the year.

Um, Madam Chair, in addition to uh my committee report, I'd like to take a point of personal privilege.

Yes, you may thank you.

Um, and thank uh our public works administrator Jay Woods.

At the request of Councilman Elliott and I, we have requested the repavement of Willcox and other areas.

As you remember, Willcox Boulevard was paved during some very cold inclement weather that was done internally, not by our general contractors.

Um we are in the process of repaving that starting probably next couple weeks if weather permits.

And I also want to also thank Jay again at our request.

If you guys remember when we passed the mayor's tax rate, we knew there would be some investment into our district to do more paving.

The Washington Hills, Oakwood Drive, under the leadership of our park, or I didn't even know that you did this until today, was paved.

And so I just want to give you a kudos for I know you're under an extreme amount of uh pressure to accommodate nine council people, and you're putting out fires, um, and you're making everybody else's district group other than just district eight.

I know there was a building that collapsed earlier today, and your crew was on it, and I just want to publicly uh thank you.

I know you've been under pressure to satisfy our constituents and you are delivering on those.

And uh, I look forward to our continual continuous relationship and communicating and really delivering results like you do with those pavement projects.

So thank you again, uh Jay Woods for your exemplary work and getting those projects across the finish line.

Thank you, Councilman Clark, and the Lord will answer prayers.

Oh, yes, he will.

Thank you.

He's good.

Uh-huh.

Councilwoman Burr, I mean Councilman Elliott.

Thank you very much.

Um we will have an economic development meeting on January 13th, the same day as Cedric will see us for community development.

Um our meeting, we'll have a um we'll be discussing the potentials for what would a bid look like in the Higson area.

Um other thing I would like to announce today is our last the last day for our intern, Trey Reed.

Oh, uh he has been with us the last several weeks, and he has been phenomenal, and I hope his experience has been uh incredibly fruitful.

And we'll hope to have you back if that's possible.

But if not, we wish you well in all your future endeavors.

And so thank you.

Don't forget to leave your badge.

Okay, councilwoman Dotley.

No report.

Councilwoman Burrs.

I just wanted to report that we had a planning and zoning committee meeting today.

A lot of good discussion about some items that'll come up on the agenda for next week.

And uh the next planning commission meeting is a reminder will be December 8th, if uh for applications that are coming before the planning commission.

Thank you, madam chair.

So there's only one person left, more so I don't actually have a report, but I do have um an announcement for the legislative committee next Tuesday carriage horse ordinance, councilman Henderson, and the air pollution ordinance.

So we're looking forward to that.

Okay, thank you, Council Family.

So attorney Knoblett, so we have some um other business here for certificates of compliance.

Yes, ma'am.

There are four establishments that are gonna be opening up that have been uh requesting, I guess, wine and grocery uh accessibility here.

There's been an investigation done.

Uh they meet all the requirements for the local zoning ordinance as to the locations of BJ's wholesale club, uh DBA BJ's wholesale club number 25 uh 54 401 Northgate Mall Drive in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

That's appropriate since that's been on the discussion this evening.

Uh certificate of compliance for Char Dari Brothers Inc.

DBA Cancus number three at 1910 Market Street, Chattanooga.

Also SAR Inc.

DBA Cancus Beer and Food 301 East MLK Boulevard, uh Chattanooga, Tennessee, and District 8, and then also a certificate of compliance for Jade 423, Inc.

DBA Cancus number 12, 2413, Fourth Avenue, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and District 8 as well.

So those are the four uh establishments that meet the requirements of the city code at this point, and they will be uh allowed to operate.

I think there's one other item regarding a donation here by Councilwoman Dotley.

Do you want to speak to that, Councilwoman, or do you want me to read it?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

Uh I'm sorry.

Yes, just briefly.

I just wanted to uh just on here that uh the great St.

Elmo, the one for residents of St.

Elmo, uh have a Chili Cookoff every year, and they raise money for station 14, which is going to be replaced soon.

Um they're excited about that.

So they raised 500, and so we cannot give the money to the fire station unless we bring it to City Council first.

So that is that right, Phil.

Okay, so that's it.

So excited about that, and thank you, St.

Elmo, for your support of our uh firefighters.

Okay.

So we've come to the session of uh council.

If we have anyone that wishes to address the council, please line up at the podium.

I'll get you.

And attorney knob, if you would read our rules, please.

Yes, at the end of each council business meeting, the chair will recognize members of the public who wish to address the council, and here's your rules.

Each speaker wishing to address the council can only be recognized at the microphone up front for that purpose, can't have more than three minutes to speak, and you can address the council only upon matters within their legislative and quasi judicial authority and not uh on matters that are not under the authority of the council or regulated by other governmental bodies or agencies.

Do not engage in any vulgar or obscene language nor use the floor to personally attack or personally denigrate others and address the council as a whole, not towards comments towards individual council members.

And lastly, do not engage in disorderly conduct or disrupting a public meeting, which is prohibited by Tennessee law.

Someone commits that offense if a person substantially obstructs or interferes with the meeting by physical action or verbal utterance with the intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting or gathering.

Having stated those rules, please give your name and start, sir.

Yes, sir.

Uh my name is Prentice Hicks.

I live and work at 4313 Kelly's Ferry Road, Chattanooga.

I'm referring to the building permit for my older stepdaughter, Hannah Wright, and her husband, Andy Lewis at 308 Maloch Street in North Chattanooga.

That section of Malloc Street is at the north end of Spears Avenue.

It is about a hundred and ten foot long street.

And I with a tape measure check the width of the street at a utility pole, which is on the boundary of actually it's over the line of a couple of lots at 308 Matlock, where Andy and Hannah are building their house.

Um the right-of-way is 16 feet.

Okay.

I have here a letter from Shannon Mikus to Dallas Rucker, Roshonda Woods, Michael Wright, Brandon Sutton, and Chris Anderson.

From a meeting they had, this meet this letter is dated September the 21st, 2021.

Um basically any building permit on this parcel will need to include sprinkling the house in order to address fire protection.

The existing street is too narrow for CFD to serve any home constructed without having the street widened and a proper turnaround constructed.

The applicant and all future owners must agree to transport all solid waste originating from the property to the corner of Spears and Matlock.

This includes refuse, recycle bulk waste and yard debris.

And basically, my point to council is I cannot find in city code under building code that there is a requirement for single family home dwellings to have sprinkler systems.

And so I query the council on whether that is actually something LDO can edict to a potential homeowner.

Talk to him afterwards.

Um sorry, I lost my train of thought there.

It's long day.

You agree, I understand.

Anyway, what I see as an issue here as well is it's uh Mattlock is a narrow street.

It goes west.

Oh, never mind.

Okay, so if I can get Chief Rowe, if you can um raise your hand.

If you can speak with him.

Okay.

Appreciate you.

Yep.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wishes to address the council at this time?

Go on once, going twice.

Oh, okay.

With me saying not, may I have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

I have a motion with the proper second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

It don't even match.