BL2024-574 - Burkitt Rd SP

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member John Rutherford concerning Ordinance No. BL2024-574, which changes from AR2a to SP zoning for properties located at 7102 Burkitt Road and 7216 Old Burkitt Road to permit 288 multi-family residential units.

From CM Rutherford: 

Council Members,

I would like to clear up some confusion and misinformation regarding BL2024-574, the rezoning in District 31 on 3rd Reading tonight.

Contrary to what you are reading in the mostly copy and paste emails we are receiving, there have been multiple meetings regarding this development, including one last week following 2nd Reading/Public Hearing. I was at the National League of Cities Conference, but the developer met with members of the Cane Ridge Community Club and a list of items was developed for an amendment to this legislation. I submitted all the items and all that were eligible to go into an amendment was added. See the amendment packet for tonight. Remember, total engagement on this development dates back three years.

For those not familiar with the area, it is worth noting that the Community Club is not located in District 31, though some District 31 residents are among it’s members, and much of the emails we have received regarding this development are from outside the district.

As for the call to include a transit shelter (like Green Hills) to this development, I’m sure Metro will consider the need for bus turnaround and shelter in due time when the 52 route is extended. This development will not be completed for at least three years. Much will happen between now and then regarding implementation of the transit plan. 

This is density along a major thoroughfare, walkable to transit (when the route is extended), with walkability added to the area by connecting to adjacent recently approved owner occupied townhome community and nearby businesses. This is what we have been talking about all along.

And 7 more developments coming??? This is complete misinformation. I have one other that is in the planning stages for a community meeting and one other where an initial conversation has been had, but the developer has not decided yet on moving forward. So, I have no idea where 7 comes from. Maybe that is across multiple area districts, but there's certainly not 7 in district 31 where I’ve had direct engagement with developers. 

Thank you, 

John Rutherford