You're watching highlights of the Chattanooga City Council meeting a production of WTCI PBS.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to our Tuesday, January the 4th City Council meeting.

Moving now to ordinances on first reading.

Madam clerk, let's have 6A, please.

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

So as to rezone property located at 4541 Peckinpaugh Drive from R1 residential zone to R1 residential zone and RTZ residential townhouse zero lot line zone with conditions.

Case number 2021-0184.

Is the applicant present?

Thank you.

Is there any opposition to this case present?

All right.

Very well.

Karen, you want to come up I guess, and just give us a brief overview, then we'll give the applicant seven minutes and then the opposition there, nine.

Okay.

I have a just presentation slides too, also, if you'd like to see those.

This is a rezoning from R1 to R1 with conditions and the RTZ residential townhouse zero lot line zone with conditions.

We've gone through this briefly before, I'll just touch on some of the highlights.

The overall density of this site is 3.25 units an acre with a portion to the north remaining R1 without condition.

The applicant did propose some conditions as part of the application request.

It is primarily single family detached in the surrounding area.

The plan does support a low-density residential use for this site.

And the overall proposed site has a density of 3.23, which is compatible with the plan.

Although the portion of that site to the south of the subdivision is slightly higher than the plan's recommended density.

Staff found the request was compatible with the plan and adjacent land uses, but did note that it introduces smaller lots into the area, could set a precedent for future zoning requests and recommended conditions to help mitigate the impact of integrating those smaller lots into the existing residential area.

There are some conditions shown there.

There was opposition at the first meeting of Planning Commission.

I believe the applicant met with the neighbors between the first and second meeting.

There was no opposition present at the second meeting when Planning Commission made their recommendation.

The recommendation was very similar, excuse me, their determinations were similar to staff and made a recommendation to approve the R1 zone for one single family detached residential dwelling only and approve RTZ for the kind of that subdivision portion of the zone to the south for single family detach residences only 4.9 dwelling units, an acre and a 10 foot landscape buffer is shown there.

And then the site plan.

So, the R1 is that area to the north and then the subdivision area, which has those three conditions as shown there to the south in that proposed road A area.

All right.

Any question for staff at this time?

Okay.

Very well.

If the applicant would come forward, Mr. [Artif 00:03:33].

If you'd give us seven minutes on the clock, you'll have seven minutes with a two minute rebuttal.

Thank you, Mike Price, MAP Engineers.

If you could go back to the site plan.

Great.

Thank you.

So, I want to change the dialogue a little bit as it relates to the last public meeting, not public meeting, I guess it was a neighborhood meeting that we had as it relates to flooding that occurs on this property.

And so, Councilman Hester was in that meeting.

And so, basically where, I think, regardless what the outcome of this vote is from the council, Councilman Hester, we're going to need your help in getting a meeting with public works.

And I've gone out to this site and looked at it and received the pictures as it related to some of the flooding conditions from some of the houses off of Tremble, which is just basically north and off this sheet here on this plan.

What I find is that you got a large sinkhole that is on the property.

What happens is during flooding events, whether we build the number of homes that you see here, or we build 14 homes, the same conditions are going to apply.

So, what we are going to look towards trying to determine is an appropriate plan to deal with storm drainage.

I can put a retention pond on this site.

I can drain this site properly.

It still goes to the sinkhole, but it will not alleviate the problems of the neighbors.

I think the pictures certainly that you saw and I've seen indicate that there's an issue here.

So, if you can get a meeting set up with public works, we've committed to try to do what we can to spend, essentially, the same if it's the same amount of dollars, then we'll do what we can to try to help ameliorate and help this situation as some of these residents above us to the north are flooding.

As it relates to the concerns of the residents, I appreciate everybody's being online in the neighborhood meeting that we had.

I think we had some good discussions.

I don't know that we necessarily came to any conclusions, but I'll just leave that then for their time to speak whatever they would like in terms of their comments, as it relates to their concerns for the project.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant at this time?

Okay.

councilwoman Hill.

Are you saying that you're going to build a neighborhood with a known sinkhole?

There is a known sinkhole.

And so, this particular sinkhole that is located where you see the wetlands, which is sort of the dashed area.

It's located just partly off of our site.

So, when this particular area was developed, it drains into a sinkhole.

When I was out there yesterday looking at the flows, it was probably intercepting close to about 500 gallons a minute, just sucking it dry.

It has been doing this way for, I don't know, hundreds, thousands of years maybe, but it certainly can handle when we have the rain events that are probably a couple inches, but when we have some pretty significant storm events, the residents to the north of us do flood in their backyards and then backing up to their homes.

So, unless there is some sort of pumping system which has been done in other areas of the city, this is going to continue to flood irrespective of what happens from a development standpoint on our property.

With regard to development on your property, the homes you are going to build are they at risk of flooding?

No.

So, they're on just higher ground in general?

Yes ma'am.

Okay.

I wonder for the city, what kind of liability does this add for us at the city to build these houses here?

I can answer that one [crosstalk 00:07:51]- I mean, I think about future infrastructure issues that- The one that's going to have the liability is myself and the developer.

Well, I don't mean liability in terms of the being sued.

I mean more...

Right now we have homes, we have empty lots and water drains into a sinkhole.

And now we build houses and we still have a sinkhole.

And what problems could potentially come from that, that then become our problem that didn't exist before?

What I would say is, the problem exists currently.

It's just never had attention to deal with it up to this point.

I would think that, given the number of homes, again, maybe it's not the number that you see here, but it would be more residents that will be backing up and impacted as it relates to the area that floods, not the homes, but the area.

So, that could be something that could be worked together with the city and putting a pump.

It doesn't have to pump every day.

Once a year, maybe.

But every so often you have flooding events that occurs that will flood those homes to the north and that needs to be addressed in my opinion.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Ledford.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a quick question because Councilwoman hill really jogged something in my mind.

So, this is a known issue for the neighbors.

With your plan, you are going to engineer a solution to the surrounding area flooding.

Because I know that by law, you have to capture your water.

Okay, that's the first part of that question.

The second part is, if you just build, I'm assuming the applicant wants to build regardless.

Yes.

Does that shift the responsibility for the infrastructure and improvements over to the city?

No.

Because, you've called for a meeting and I'm trying to figure out who's paying for the improvements under what scenario?

So these are great questions.

Maybe they're not zoning questions but- They're not, but- ... to the question what I would say is, if a development's going to occur, we have responsibilities as it relates to storm water.

If we're spending a number of say $40,000 to put in a retention pond, but the better solution is to maybe spend $40,000 towards a pump that can help pull out high water elevations that occur, then everyone benefits at the end of the day because the sinkhole can absorb smaller runoff rates.

I think that it's a negotiation between the developer and the city to try to see if there's a partnership that can work in both individuals' or both parties' favor, if you will, that will benefit the residents.

That would be the hope.

Okay.

And the conversation in the meetings, because I, I, I don't know about this one, the community meetings, was it because of the density of RTZ or what was the main pushback, I think, from our opposition points?

I think the main pushback had concern with two points.

One was traffic.

There was a concern that there would be roughly 30 more cars traveling the streets and they felt that that was maybe a onerous situation in their minds.

And the second dealt with how we would landscape adjacent to the residents that abut the property, whether that would be some sort of fence or landscaping.

Some people wanted more fencing.

Maybe some people wanted a little bit more landscaping.

It was hard to do both.

So, it really settled on exactly what was wanted.

But I think that the goal that I heard from the residents is, we really just don't want this at the end of the day.

Don't want development or the RTZ?

Well, their preference would be they would have no development.

But as I stated in the meeting is that, the difference is we can have 14 houses which can be constructed in, basically, the neighborhood has no input or as it relates to landscaping or screenings.

Or we can do the proposed 19 and we can do some of these items that you want to do.

But at the end of the day, I don't think that it quite rose to the level.

Again, I'll let them speak for themselves that we met the bar in their minds as far as that that was something that they were willing to do.

Okay.

I'm just trying to put my hands on the most contentious points.

So, the difference is four or five houses?

Five.

Five, basically.

Four to five.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, chairman.

[inaudible 00:12:55] okay.

At this time, we'll allow opposition a total of nine minutes.

Is there anyone that is here in opposition that would like to speak at this time?

Okay.

All right.

If you would come up to the podium.

And like I say, you will have a total amount of time of nine minutes.

So, just be mindful of anyone that would like to speak after you.

So Mr. Artif, if you'd give us a total of nine minutes, please, sir.

I do have pictures that I wanted to show [crosstalk 00:13:33]- Okay.

If you would give us your name first and then go ahead and I guess you can give those to Karen.

Stacy Hamilton Mobley and real quick, I live at the 45 36 [crosstalk 00:13:44]- Would you pull your mic down?

I'm sorry.

There you go.

A little nervous.

I live on 45/36 Trisha Drive, which is actually the house on the other side of the sinkhole.

So, the pictures that I sent around, which I've talked to Councilman Hester.

I've been dealing with this since 2019.

The pictures that I'm sending, my house is at its worst.

So, my main concern is, and Mr. Price was extremely nice about it.

But my main concern is that, my house already collects all the water from the whole street and everywhere else.

And more houses, he's going to have the drainage... Well, the drainage, of course, is going... His plan is to run it to the sinkhole.

So, then you have all the water from Trisha Drive, where I live all the water from his development, going into this one, sinkhole, that's not sinking.

So, I even had to move out my house for two months, two years ago because the water came all way up to my house and we had to evacuate.

So, my concern is that I know it's business, but it's personal for me, because this is my home, this is where I am every day.

And I just don't want something that hasn't already been corrected, something else built on top of the issue.

So, my issue is just the drainage and I can't afford to move or anything.

So, for me, it's very personal.

My house floods.

So, more water going into this sinkhole that he says it's pumping, it does pump, but it's not enough to get all the water from my street and now a whole development, that's going to be running right to it.

All right.

Good evening.

My name is [Rhonda McWater 00:15:16].

I'm at 45/32 to Tomben Lane.

I have a special interest because I would be there on the corner of Tomben and Heiskell in the diagram.

I'm speaking for a number of the residents that did not make it here tonight.

We did have a community meeting with Mr. Price.

The general consensus after everything was done, we do understand business, we do understand they bought the property to develop it, but in the best interest of the neighborhood, the smaller lot sizes, they are concerned with property value considering everybody else's lots are a little bit bigger than what he's proposing with the 19.

We're fine with the smaller amount, instead of going to the 19, the 14, 15, 16 houses, we are okay with that.

You can't stop someone from developing their own property and we do understand that.

We just ask that the least amount possible without affecting the other neighbors in the area.

And then there's also a question of, in the mouth of the inlet, because it's going to be Heiskell Drive.

There are two caves in that area and those caves lead all the way back up to Hickory Valley Road, the old T&T plant.

They are huge.

The mouth of the cave is about, I guess, maybe a little shorter than the top of my house.

You can stand up when people, you used to escape from Silverdale, they would use those caves.

Those caves are still there.

I just think that that might be something that the developer wants to look at before he does get in there and see that it's just kind of a forewarning, but all of the kids, I've been in this area for 47 years.

So I've seen the cave, I was too scared to go in the cave, but I know the caves are there.

Other than that, that's all I have to say is just the concern of the density, the traffic and the lot sizes.

My name is Michael Harrison.

I'm on Peckingpaugh 45/14 on the other end.

But I own property on Heiskell too.

A few houses down from her.

And my biggest con was the water.

I had problem water in my house and I know what she's talking about.

So, there's a pump station back then now, but it doesn't pump unless you cleaned out from round it.

You know what I mean?

So, there's nobody doing that on a regular cycle.

I don't know who put it in, but it's been there since I've been there.

I've been there 25 years.

I thought it was an electrical station down there.

It's fenced in.

They told me it's a pump station, but nobody's maintaining it.

So, if they're going to build, that's fine, but, and he going to be retaining the pond, but where's that water going?

In the sinkhole.

But it's going to be a lot more water than what we see.

The way things are going with the federal government and they not putting money in infrastructure, we're going to get more water.

Look at the weather, the weather changes.

Now it's supposed to be cold.

It just got cold.

It should have been cold a while back, but things are going to happen and we need to look at this issue of the water before they build.

That's all I got to say.

Do we have any questions for the opposition at this time?

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Price, you have two minute rebuttal.

We just can't... huh?

Opposition?

Oh, for Mr. Price?

Yeah.

Okay.

You have two minutes of rebuttal left and then I think some questions.

I'll just take questions.

Okay.

Councilwoman Berz.

Yeah.

Mike, so I'm hearing a lot of different things here.

Does your development impact the flooding?

We will be able to mitigate our impacts as it relates to storm water runoff so that it will not create- Because you're required to, right?

... which we'd be required to [crosstalk 00:19:33].

Required to by the city.

Okay, that's one thing.

Are you familiar with the pump they're talking about?

It is a sewer pump station.

It is not a stormwater pumping station.

Okay, that helps.

So, maybe city needs to look at it and clean it out, but it's not relative to your situation.

It appeared to be functioning fine when I was out there.

So, it is functioning fine.

All right.

And it's your understanding that everything would be approved, I guess this may be an opposition Mr.

Chair, but everything is approved if it's five fewer houses?

Right.

We can't stop our [inaudible 00:20:13].

Is that real [inaudible 00:20:13] build 14 to 15 houses.

But it's the extra houses?

It is the extra houses and the...

It's not about building a town house.

In the RTZ you can build a town house and he restricted it [inaudible 00:20:21] that at all.

Okay.

And here we say, now we're saying, everybody looked up and said, "No to any change [inaudible 00:20:35]."

So, they're going to build 14 to 15 houses [crosstalk 00:20:41].

Thank you.

I was just trying to get clear in my head what the problem- Okay.

Well, it'd be better if they come to the podium to speak.

Councilman Ledford.

Thank you chair.

Mr. Price, what role does T Deck have in this?

Because there's more than one acre of disturbance, they will review the erosion control plan.

The stormwater runoff discharge goes to a sinkhole, but because we are not impacting the sinkhole proper, T Deck will not have any input as it relates to the permitting process on this.

Does the infrastructure for mitigation change with an R1 or an RTZ or does the added four houses allow for increased mitigation efforts?

Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does.

The amount of runoff generated for 14 houses versus 19 houses is the same.

So there's really no difference.

If you look at the road configuration as currently proposed, would be no different for 14 houses versus 15.

It's going to be exactly the same.

The only difference is the lot lines will spread out.

You'll have fewer houses, but the amount of fill, the amount of grading, storm, everything remains exactly the same.

Okay.

And then the traffic concern versus R1 and RTZ.

My quick math says, that's really only five cars or 10 cars max, if you had a two car family.

Correct.

10 cars, if you had two car families.

Thank you.

Councilman Byrd.

Thank you, chair.

Hey Mike, as it is now R1 say you can build, we just seen a number.

You can build 12 houses.

14, 15 [crosstalk 00:22:28].

14, 15 as it is now.

Yes, sir.

So, you can go out there and build now the community really doesn't have a say so.

It's just, it is what it is, correct?

Correct.

Now, by you adding the extra houses, that's when you have to put the retention pond?

That would be the same either way.

I told them in our last meeting that, regardless of this outcome, we need to work together as a community, as neighbors to see if we can get some sort of partnership worked up with the city as there is currently an issue that is there that I think needs attention.

So, irrespective of how the outcome of this vote goes, I've committed that we're going to work together to try to come up with, hopefully, a solution that addresses some of these residents' concerns.

Any more questions for Mr. Price?

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman Hester.

Thank you.

I want to thank you, Mike Price, the Lakeshore Hills neighborhood.

After careful consideration, my recommendation is to deny at this time.

Is that in a form of a motion, sir?

That is a motion.

And did I hear a second?

Okay.

We have a motion on the floor to deny case number 2021-0184 with a proper second.

Are there any questions or comments before we vote?

Roll call Madam clerk.

Councilwoman Hill?

Yes.

Councilman Ledford?

Yes.

Councilman Hester?

Yes.

Councilwoman Berz?

Yes.

Councilwoman Dotley?

Yes.

Councilman Byrd?

Yes.

Councilwoman Coonrod?

Yes.

Vice chairman Smith?

Yes.

Chairman Henderson?

Yes.

Nine yeses.

Motion to deny is approved, where it carries.

All right.

Moving now down to items six.

Madam clerk, if you would, let's take six B and C together.

If there's no opposition from the council.

Item B.

An ordinance closing and abandoning a portion of a right-of-way located at the corner of West 26th Street at Cowart Street, as detailed on the attached map subject to certain conditions.

Items C. An ordinance closing and abandoning a portion of the 2500 block of East 16th Street and an unopened alley as detailed on the attached map, subject to certain conditions.

Councilwoman Coonrod followed by, well, Councilwoman Dotley.

No, Councilwoman Coonrod followed by Councilwoman Dotley.

Okay.

I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.

And she seconded.

I spoke to Elis earlier about getting some speakers up here so we could hear this [inaudible 00:25:30].

Okay.

We have a motion on the floor apparently to approve items five or six, B and C with a proper second.

Do we have any questions or comments before we vote?

Roll call please.

Councilwoman Coonrod?

Yes.

Councilman Byrd?

Yes.

Councilwoman Dotley?

Yes.

Councilwoman Berz?

Yes.

Councilman Hester?

Yes.

Councilman Ledford?

Yes.

Councilwoman Hill?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Smith?

Yes.

Chairman Henderson?

Yes.

Nine yeses.

Motion to approve item six, B and C does carry.

Council, I am not seeing any other hands to address the council.

What's your pleasure?

Council adjourned.

So moved.

You've been watching highlights of the Chattanooga City Council meeting a production of WTCI PBS.

Get access to even more of the shows you love with WTCI Passport on the PBS video app.

Download it today.