Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
PUBLIC HEARING.
WE ASK EACH APPLICANT KEEP TO
TEN MINUTES, RESERVE TWO MINUTES
TO REBUTTAL.
WE ASK THE PUBLIC TO STICK TO
TWO MINUTES.
THE STAFF WILL KEEP ACCOUNT FOR
YOU.
KEEP AN EYE ON THEM.
ALSO, TO APPEAL A DECISION FROM
THE HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION,
PURSUANT TO THE METROPOLITAN
CODE OF LAWS, A FINAL HEARING
BEFORE THIS COMMISSION IS
APPEALABLE TO DAVIDSON COUNTY OR
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIDSON
COUNTY.
YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO EASTBOUND
SURE ALL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
ARE MET AND SEEK ADVISE
APPLICABLE TO THE SPECIFIC
DECISION OF THE ZONING
COMMISSION.
HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO
REVIEW LAST MONTH'S MEETING
MINUTES?
>> YES.
>> MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEMS
WILL BE VOTED ON AT A SINGLE
TIME.
NO ITEMS WILL BE DEBATED UNLESS
A MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE REQUEST
THAT THE ITEM BE REMOVED FROM
THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I THOUGHT I WOULD JUMP UP.
WE HAVE NO CONSENT AGENDA TODAY.
EVERYTHING WAS INFILL OR
SOMETHING TO BE DISCUSSED.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL JUMP TO
THE FIRST CASE WHICH IS THE
EXPANSION OF THE HILLSBORO WEST
END.
ALL OF THE AREA INCLUDED IS IN
THE NATIONAL REGISTER AREA.
IT MEETS STANDARDS.
HERE ARE IMAGES OF THE STYLES
YOU SEE THERE.
IT'S ALL THE SAME TYPE OF
HOUSING.
AGE OF HOUSING AS YOU SEE IN THE
CURRENT OVERLAY.
THIS IS CONTINUING THE OVERLAY
SO IT COVERS THE NATIONAL
REGISTER BOUNDARY.
I BELIEVE THE WOWNS WILL PERSON
IS HERE AND MAY WANT TO SAY A
FEW WORDS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
I WANT TO THANK THE LEADERS OF
THE HILLSBORO WEST END
ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR HARD WORK
ON THIS, INCLUDING TOM CARB, AND
THE MANY BLOCK CAPTAINS WHO
WORKED ON THIS.
THEY PUT IN NUMEROUS HOURS TO
GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL IN AS MANY WAYS AS THEY
COULD.
THE BOUNDARIES INCLUDE ALL OF
THE AREAS EXPRESSING INTEREST TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS LATER IF NEEDED
TO.
I SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF THE
HILLSBORO WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION OVERLAY.
IT SPRANG UP IN THE WEST END OF
HILLSBORO PIKE.
THE GROWING AREA SHOW THAT IS
HISTORIANS VALUE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
EXPANSIONS ARE CONSIDERED FOR
THE EXPANSION.
I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY MANY
NEIGHBORS SEEING HISTORIC HOMES
DEMOLISHED MAKING WAY FOR
SMALLER HOMES NOT IN CHARACTER
WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS ALLOWS THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO
CHANGE IN GROWTH IN THE WAY THAT
HOMEOWNERS WERE DRAWN TO THE
AREA.
I ASK SUPPORT FOR THE EXPANSION.
I HAVE ANOTHER HEARING TO RUN
TO.
I LEAVE THIS IN THE CAPABLE
HANDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION.
>> THANK YOU.
ALL OF THE PRESENTATION FOR IT?
IIF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK,
PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS MARTHA STINSON.
I LIVE AT 2606 WESTWOOD AVENUE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY.
MY HOME IS IN THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION ZONING OVERLAY.
I WAS TOLD I HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
IS THAIS THAT CORRECT?
THANK YOU.
>> I WANTED TO GIVE YOU HISTORY
AND EXPLAIN THE PROCESS WE HAVE
BEEN GOING THROUGH AND FINALLY
REPORT ON THE SUPPORT FOR THE
OVERLAY.
AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW, NASHVILLE
ONCE HAD A STREETC SYSTEM.
IN 1910 STREETCARS BEGAN GOING
TO WAVE BOULEVARD.
MOST HOMES WERE BUILT BETWEEN
1910 AND 1935 IN THE STYLE
FAVORED BY THE URBAN MIDDLE
CLASS OF THE DAY INCLUDING
BUNGALOW, REVIVAL, AMERICAN FOUR
SCARE AND ENGLISH COTTAGE.
IN 1993, THE DISTRICT WAS PLACED
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF
HISTORIC PLACES AND THE
NOMINATION WAS FINE BY MAYOR
BREDSON.
THE REASON CITED WAS
ARCHITECTURE SIGNIFICANCE AS THE
DISTRICT T HAS THE LARGEST
COLLECTION OF 20TH CENTURY
HOUSES IN REGISTRY.
THIS DOES NOT PREVENT
DESTRUCTION OF HOMES OR
COMPATIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION.
IN 2005, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SOUGHT
TO PROTECT ITS ASSETS AND
ADOPTED CONSERVATION ZONING
LARGELY NORTH OF BLAIR BOULEVARD
AND THE OTHER HALF WAS NOT
INCLUDED.
THAT WAS BECAUSE THE STRONG
SUPPORT THERE WAS NOT ON THE
STREET AND THE GAP WAS DUE
LARGELY TO A LACK OF VOLUNTEERS.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE DAY.
OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS, THE
HILLSBORO WEST END BOARD HAS
HEARD FROM THOSE THAT CARE ABOUT
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE PACE OF
DEMOLITION AND DEVELOPMENT AND A
LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE
RESULTING NEW CONSTRUCTION SOME
OF WHICH APPEARS COMPATIBLE AND
SOME OF WHICH VARIES GREATLY.
WHAT IS BEING BUILT NOW IS LEFT
UP TO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS.
IN CONNOTATION WITH COUNCIL
METRO MEMBER ALLEN, THE BOARD
DECIDED TO LOOK INTO THE
EXTENDING OVERLAY AND BE
DELIBERATE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ASK, GOING
FORWARD, WOULD WE LIKE
CONSTRUCTION TO HAVE GUIDELINES
THOUGH IT MEANS CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS, OR ARE WE OKAY WITH
PLACING THE FUTURE OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE HANDS OF
VARIOUS DEVELOPERS WITH NO
GUIDELINES AND NO LIMITATIONS?
TO FIND OUT, A COMMITTEE OF
PROPERTY OWNERS CAME TOGETHER
LAST AUGUST AND THE PROCESS WAS
MAPPED OUT.
THE PROCESS WAS MADE TO BE FAIR
AND ENCOURAGE DIALOGUE.
THE ULTIMATE GOAL WAS FOR
HOMEOWNERS TO TURN IN SURVEYS
TELLS US WHAT THEY THINK.
THIS TIME WHEN THE CALL WENT OUT
FOR VOLUNTEERS, THE RESPONSE WAS
ENTHUSIASTIC.
IN SEPTEMBER, WE WALKED 500
FLYERS DOOR TO DOOR.
225 NEIGHBORS STEPPED UP TO BE
BLOCK CAPTAINS.
WE HEALD THREE MEETINGS THAT
WERE WELL ATTENDED WITH MORE
THAN 125 FOLKS TURNING OUT.
ON THE COMMUNICATION FRONT, WE
LAUNCH TD A WEB PAGE OVER
ZONING, PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN
THE NEWS LETTER AND CONTINUE TO
POST UPDATES ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD
LISTSERV.
WE HAVE FOLLOWED ALL OF THE
DEADLINES AND NOTIFICATIONS TO A
"T."
NOW ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
SUPPORT.
PLEASE KNOW THE SURVEY IS
CLEARLY STARTED.
THE SURVEY AND LINKS TO THE
SURVEY ON LINE HAVE BEEN WIDELY
AND THOROUGHLY DISTRIBUTED.
BASED ON ALL OF THE RESPONSES
RECEIVED BY TODAY, THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY ARE IN
FAVOR OF ZONING.
8% OPPOSED.
LOOKING AT THE RAW DATA, IT'S
10-1 IN FAVOR OF CONSERVATION
ZONING.
TO SUM UP, THE DISTRICT'S
HISTORIC CHARACTER AND
ARCHITECTURE IS A UNIQUE ASSET.
THE PROJECT HAS BEEN BASED ON
AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE
AND COMMUNICATION.
THE SURVEY RESULTS SHOW
SUBSTANTIAL REPORT AMONG
PROPERTY OWNERS WITH 86% IN
FAVOR AND 8% OPPOSED.
THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR VOTE IN SUPPORT OF
THE EXPANSION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS HUNTER MOORE.
I'M A RESIDENT OF 2115 NATURAL
TRACE AND HAVE LIVED IN THE
HISTORIC WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD
FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
EXPRESS THE SUPPORT FOR THE
ZONING OVERLAY IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY HOME IS IN THE EXISTING
OVERLAY.
I AM VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD.
OUR BOARD VOTED TO SUPPORT THE
PROPOSED EXPANSION AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUS IN SUPPORT.
AS A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF
HILLSBORO WEST END, I APPRECIATE
ITS HISTORY AND UNIQUE
ARCHITECTURE.
THEY ARE LISTED ON THE REGISTRY
OF HISTORIC PLACES.
INCREASING PROPERTY VALUES AND
RISING PRESSURES ARE RESULTING
IN THE INCREASED DEMOLITION OF
OUR HISTORIC HOMES.
FOUR HOMES IN THE HILLSBORO WEST
END THAT I BELIEVE WOULD HAVE
BEEN QUALIFIED AS HISTORIC HAVE
BEEN DEMOLISHED IN RECENT
MONTHS.
THE EXISTING CZO INFORMATION
WILL PROVIDE GUIDANCE.
IT HAS BEEN FAIR AND
COMPREHENSIVE.
I SERVED FOR THE BLOCK CAPTAINS.
THE AREA IS INTERSECTED BY THE
STREETS IN THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION AND IS AN IMPORTANT
ARTERY CONNECTING I-4 AND
VANDERBILT.
WE LEFT INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATED WITH EVERY
RESIDENT.
WE FOUND THE SUPPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED EXPANSION TO BE VERY
STRONG.
AS A RESULT, I ASK THAT YOU
PLEASE SUPPORT THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION FOR HILLSBORO WEST IND
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
SERVICE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
ANY NAME IS GREG.
I LIVE AT 2113 ASHWOOD.
ROBIN PUT A PICTURE OF ONE OF MY
RENTAL PROPERTIES UP THERE IN
THE LEFT HAND QUARTER, 2115
ASHWOOD AVENUE.
I HAVE COME HERE TODAY TO
EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY EXPANSION.
I OWN SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE
AREA ALL OF WHICH ARE IN THE
CONSERVATION ZONING OVERLAY.
CURRENTLY MY HOME AND ONE OTHER
ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ZONE.
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS I HAVE
HEARD NUMEROUS COMMENTS ABOUT
THE ZONING OVERLAY BEING
SOMETHING ANTIDEVELOPMENT, SORT
OF ANTI-PROGRESS, AND I SUPPORT,
AS A LANDLORD, THE ZONING
OVERLAY.
I BELIEVE IT ENHANCES THE VALUE
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS WE HAVE HEARD PREVIOUSLY,
CONTROLS AND GUIDES THE FUTURE
EXPANSION OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE SECOND PART I WOULD LIKE TO
ADD, I LIVE ADJACENT TO SUNSET
PLACE WHICH HAS HAD AN ENORMOUS
AMOUNT OF DEMOLITION ON IT IN
THE PAST YEAR.
MY HOUSE BACKS UP TO TWO
PROPERTIES, THE RENTAL PROPERTY
UP THERE BACKS UP TO ANOTHER TWO
PROPERTIES WHICH MAKES ME FEEL I
HAVE BEEN LIVING IN A NEW
DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN A
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTED NEARLY A
HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHANGE
OF THE WAY MY NEIGHBORHOOD
LOOKS.
THAT'S ANOTHER POINT I WANTED TO
ADD TO COMPLIMENT WHAT WE HEARD
EARLIER TODAY.
IN CLOSING, THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING THIS.
I SUPPORT THIS CONSERVATION
ZONING OVERLAY.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS MIRIAM MIMS.
I LIVE AT 2110 BLAIR BOULEVARD
ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE
PROPOSED CZO.
I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HAVE SEEN A JUX POSITION OF
THE AREA CONSERVED AGAINST THE
AREA NOT BEING CONSERVED.
IT TROUBLES ME TO SEE THE
CHANGE.
NUMBER ONE, I WANT TO MENTION
THAT NASHVILLE IS A GROWING,
ATTRACTIVE, VITAL CITY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES IT
ALLURING TO OTHER CITIES AND
TOWNS AND MEDIA THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES IS THE FACT THAT
WEAVAVE THIS HISTORY.
WHEN PEOPLE COME T OUR AREA,
THEY ARENVNVIGORATED BY THE LOOK
OF OUR CITY NEW AND OLD.
IF I MAY BE SO BOLD, I WOULD
LIKE TOASASS THIS BOOK AROUND.
I HAVE MARKED OVER 50 HOMES IN
NASHVILLE, ALL BUNGALOWS CHOSEN
FOR SELECTION IN A BOOK OF
HISTORIC BUNGALOWS THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES.
THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS BOOK
SAW FIT TO INCLUDE OUR BUNGALOWS
IN OUR DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY
THOUGHT THEY WERE IMPOANANT,
HISTORIC AND VIBRANT.
THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF WHAT
PEOPLE THINK ABOUT OUR CITY.
CALIFOIAIA,WIWIONONSIN,
MINNESOTA, ALL THESE OTHER
STATES.
TH LLNLNLY ADD TO N NASHVILLE
TO PRESERVE OUR AREA.
I WOULLILI T T MTITI T THAT
WHEN A A NTRIBUTITING MEME IS--
ORAA HISTSTICIC H HEE ISDEMOLISH
ANRARAEDED, WHWH WE OFOFN S S IS
AN OUT OF SCALE HOMOM THAT IS NT
SENSITIVE TO THE STREET ESCAPE
BUILT IN ITS PLACE.
I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT WHAT
OFTEN HAPPENS IS, YOU HAVE A
BUNGALOW WITH A FAMILY IN IT, A
NEW --
>> THAT'S TWO MINUTES.
>> AND THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE
LIVING IN IT.
NO CHANGE IN RESIDENCE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
CONSIDERING THIS.
>>> CHAIR: THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ED KING.
I'M A RESIDENT OF 2810 WEST
LINDEN AVENUE.
I'M HERE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION
TO THE OVERLAY.
WHEN IT WAS TALKED ABOUT LAST
SUMMER, I WAS INTERESTED IN
FINDING OUT MORE FACTS ABOUT
WHAT IT WOULD AND WOULDN'T DO
FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHILE IT WOULD TAKE CARE OF
SEEING IF HOUSES BUILT CONFORM
TO THE STYLE OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WOULD NOT
ELIMINATE THE ABILITY FOR THE
BUILDER TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE ON
SUNSET PLACE, WHERE THEY HAVE
TAKEN MULTIPLE LOTS AND SUB
DIVIDED THEM.
THAT IS A ZONING ISSUE, NOT A
CONSERVATION ISSUE.
WHAT IT DOES TO ME, PERSONALLY,
IT LIMITS MY PROPERTY RIGHTS
BECAUSE I LIVE ON A CORNER LOT
AND I WANT TO BUILD A GARAGE.
UNDER THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY,
I CAN ONLY BUILD ONE THAT
DOESN'T FACE THE STREET.
I DON'T HAVE ALLEY ACCESS, SO I
HAVE TO TAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF
MY LOT TO SWING GARAGE DOORS
AROUND TO THE SIDE.
I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR.
THEY LEFT OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT
PART OF 29TH AVENUE WHICH IS
NEAR ME, THAT I HAD THE CONCERN
ABOUT WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY
SUPPORTING THE CONSERVATION
OVERLAY, IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN
THE OVERLAY.
THEY CONSIDERED IT
NONCONTRIBUTING, I BELIEVE IS
THE WORD, NEAR FIVE LOTS.
SO I CAN ENVISION A BUILDER
COMING IN AND DOING THERE WHAT
THEY DID ON SUNSET, WHILE I HAVE
NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO
MY PROPERTY.
>>> CHAIR: THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M A RESIDENT OF 2717 WESTWOOD
AVENUE WHERE I HAVE LIVED SINCE
1983.
THAT SOUNDS BETTER THAN MORE
THAN 30 YEARS.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF CZO
EXPANSION.
I THINK MY NEIGHBORS HAVE MADE
COMPELLING ARGUMENTS.
I HAVE WORKED AS A VOLUNTEER IN
DOING THE DOOR TO DOOR SURVEYS
AND COMMUNICATION IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE IS STRONG AND WIDESPREAD
SUPPORT.
I URGE YOU TO ALLOW US TO EXPAND
OUR CONSERVATION ZONING OVERLAY.
THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR: ANY OTHERS?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING.
OPENING UP FOR DISCUSSION.
>> IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE
COMMUNITY HAS DONE WHAT'S
REQUIRED OF MAKING APPLICATION
FOR EXPANSION AND SEEING SUCH, I
MOVE APPROVAL.
>> CHAIR: SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> CHAIR: DISCUSSION?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF
ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE
GUIDELINES REGARDING GARAGES.
>> THANKS FOR ASKING THAT.
I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT
HIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY, BUT
CORNER LOTS ARE ALLOWED GARAGES.
I WOULD NEED MORE INFORMATION TO
KNOW WHAT THE CONCERN WAS.
IT MAY BE SOMEONE WE HAVE TALKED
TO.
WE HAVE TALKED TO SO MANY, I
DON'T REMEMBER ALL IN THE CASE.
>> SO IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT
STREET FACING --
>> IT DOES NOT.
I HAVE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT
PARTICULAR LOT TO ANSWER THAT
PARTICULAR QUESTION.
>> ONE OF THE REASONS I ASKED,
BESIDES IT WAS BROUGHT UP, IF
YOU LOOK AT THE AREA, THERE IS
VIRTUALLY NO ALLEY LOADED
PARCELS.
THEY ARE ALL STREET BLOCKS AND
PARCELS THAT AREN'T SERVED BY
ALLEYS.
IN FACT, A LOT OF LOTS APPEAR TO
BE SUB DIVIDED, PROBABLY LATER,
I'M GUESSING, AND ARE SMALLER
THAN MOST OF THE LOTS IN THE
EXISTING DISTRICT.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL.
IF IF THE CURRENT GUIDELINES
PROHIBIT THINGS THAT WORK ON THE
LARGER LOTS IN THE EXISTING
DISTRICT, IT MAY BE SOMETHING
THE STAFF MAY WANT TO LOOK AT
WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF THERE ARE NUANCES THAT NEED
TO BE LOOKED AT IN THE FUTURE
BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER LOTS AND
LACK OF ALLEYS IN THE AREA.
OTHERWISE, IT'S GREAT TO SEE THE
COMMUNITY IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND
EXPANSION OF THE DISTRICT, I
THINK, IS A GOOD IDEA.
IF THERE WASN'T A SECOND, I'LL
SECOND.
>> CHAIR: THERE WAS.
A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ALL OPPOSED?
MOTION CARRIES FOR THE
CONSERVATION ZONING EXPANSION.
>> WHERE DID THE BUNGALOW END
UP?
I WANT TO GET IT BACK TO THIS
MAN.
>> CHAIR: 1810 ASHWOOD AVENUE.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I WANT TO
MAKE A COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED
PUBLIC COMMENT BY E-MAIL.
MOST WERE FORWARDED TO YOU
YESTERDAY.
THERE WERE A FEW WE RECEIVED
THIS MORNING.
SO THE DOCUMENT PASSED AROUND IS
ALL OF THEM COLLECTED.
ALL ARE IN SUPPORT.
MOVING ON TO 1810 ASHWOOD, THE
APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO
DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUNGALOW
BUILT IN 1823.
THE HOUSE IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE
DISTRIBUTION, SO THE REQUEST
MEETS SECTION ABA FOR
INAPPROPRIATE DEMOLITION.
IT MUST BE BEYOND REPAIR AND
RENDER THE APPLICANT UNUSUAL
PROBLEMS FOR THE PROPERTY.
IN THIS CASE, IT'S USEABLE,
SOMEONE IS LIVING THERE NOW.
THERE ARE UNUSUAL REPAIRS, BUT
DIDN'T RECOMMEND THAT IT BE
DEMOLISHED OR MAKE COMMENTS
ABOUT IT BEING UNSAFE.
STAFF'S REVIEW DIDN'T REVEAL A
HOME UNUSABLE.
ONE STATES REPAIRS ARE 185,000
TO $225,000.
THE PRICE INCLUDES MODERNIZING
THE HOME, CHIMNEY, ROOF,
INSTALLING A CONCRETE DRIVE,
PARKING AREA, REPLACING
ELECTRICAL PLUMBING AND A.C.
NONE OF THE REPAIRS ARE
NECESSARY TO MAKE THE BUILDING
HABITABLE.
THE OWNER HAS SOMEONE LIVING
THERE NOW.
IT APPEARED USEABLE IN STAFF
INSPECTION.
A SECOND DETAILED INSPECTION WAS
PROVIDED BY THE SAME CONTRACTOR.
IN THIS CASE THE EXPENSES ARE TO
REPLACE EVERY ELEMENT FROM THE
FOUNDATION TO ROOF.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW
THAT'S NECESSARY.
NEITHER SHOWS EXPENSES FOR JUST
THE FEW REPAIRS NOTED IN THE
ENGINEER'S REPORT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL
BASED ON THE BUILDING IS
HISTORIC AND THE FACT THAT THE
BUILDING IS HABITABLE AND
USEABLE WHICH DOES NOT MEET
SSECTION 4B FOR DEMOLITION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS
PRESENT.
PERHAPS NOT.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>> NOT AT THIS TIME.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL OF THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK REGARDING THIS PROJECT?
>> I'M LINDSEY MOFFET
REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT STAFF
RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE.
WE FEEL THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING
HOME AND WOULD BEGIN TO TAKE
AWAY SMALLER HOUSING STOCK, IT
DISRUPTS THE FABRIC OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE
OVERLAY TO PRESERVE HOMES LIKE
THESE.
HOPEFULLY, IT HASN'T BEEN
ALLOWED TO FALL INTO DISREPAIR.
THE OWNER HAD IT SINCE 2001.
HE CLAIMS IT'S NOT WORTH WHAT
IT'S APPRAISED FOR.
HE'S PAYING TAXES ON THAT
AMOUNT.
HE HAS NOT GONE TO THE TAX
ASSESSOR TO PROPOSE THE VALUE,
SO I QUESTION THE POINT HE MADE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT STAFF
IN THIS RECOMMENDATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR: THANK YOU.
ANY OTHERS?
OKAY.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSION?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE DEMOLITION
AND UPHOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION
ON THIS.
>> SECOND.
>> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A
NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT SENT AN
INCRCREDULOUS E-MAIL TO STAFF.
IT'S VERY INAPPROPRIATE.
I FEEL WE REPRESENT THE STAFF AS
WELL.
I HAVE NEVER REALLY SEEN
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I HOPE IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO
COME BACK BEFORE US OR BEFORE
STAFF THAT THEY AT LEAST PUT OUT
AN APOLOGY TO US AND TO STAFF
FOR THAT E-MAIL.
THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR: OKAY, MOTION AND
SECOND -- I SEE ANOTHER
DISCUSSION.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, HAVING
REVIEWED THE CASE PRESENTED AND
REITERATE STAFF'S ANALYSIS THAT
THE ESTIMATE FOR REPAIRS IS TO
BASICALLY RECONSTRUCT THE HOUSE.
IT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE REVIEWING
HERE.
IT'S A SIMPLE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT
MAYBE ABOUT $80 THE INSTALLATION
COSTS COVER ONE OF THE MORE
GLARING, I GUESS, MOSTLY
COSMETIC DAMAGE.
THE INTERIOR COULD BE FIXED FOR
A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS NOT
$300,000.
THAT AND IN ADDITION TO OTHER
THINGS, IS TO BE NOTED.
>> CHAIR: THANKS.
IF THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION,
WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF STAFF
RECOMMENDATION?
>> AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED?
STAFF RECOMMENDS.
1114 LILLIAN STREET -- OR 1112?
THIS CASE IS FOR 1114.
>> 1114 AND 1112 ARE BOTH
APPLICATIONS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION FROM THE SAME
APPLICANT.
THEY ARE ADJACENT AND THE
PROPOSALS ARE SIMILAR.
WE CAN DISCUSS THEM TOGETHER.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS 1112 IS A
NONCONTRIBUTING HOUSE WHICH
WOULD BE DEMOLISHED TO MAKE WAY
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
IT MEETS THE GUIDELINES.
1114 IS VACANT.
THE TWO LOTS ARE 17 FEET
NARROWER THAN THE TYPICAL LOT OF
THE AREA.
GENERALLY LOTS ARE 50 FEET WIDE.
THERE IS DIVERSITY ON THE
STREET.
ONE IS 60 FEET.
THERE IS A 40 FEET LOT.
THE STANDARD LOT IS 50.
THESE DIVIDED IN 1961 ARE
30 FEET EACH GIVE OR TAKE A FEW
INCHES.
THE PROPOSED NEW HOUSES ON THE
LOTS WOULD BE TWO STORIES TALL
MEASURED FROM THE FRONT WITH AN
ADDITIONAL STORY GAINED IN THE
REAR OF THE TWO STRUCTURES AS
THE GRADE DROPS AWAY FROM THE
STREET.
THE HOUSES IN THE SURROUNDING
AREA HERE ON LILLIAN STREET ARE
ALL ONLY ONE STORY.
THERE HACK RECENT INFILL
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON
THE 1300 BLOCK OF LILLIAN STREET
ONE AND A HALF STORY FROM 11TH
STREET TO 14TH STREET IS
CONTINUOUS, ONE BLOCK.
IT'S ON THE 1300 BLOCK
NUMBERWISE, IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME CONTEXT.
SO WITH THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION ON
THESE LOTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE
NARROWER, WITH THE HOUSES
EVENTUALLY NARROWER THAN
SURROUNDING HOUSES.
STAFF FINDS A TWO STORY HOUSE
WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE BECAUSE
OF THE EXISTING CONTEXT.
THE NEW PROPOSAL WOULD BE TOO
TALL, OUT OF SCALE, NOT MEETING
DESIGN GUIDELINES 2B1 AND 2
PERTAINING TO STYLE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF
BOTH HOUSES.
THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH US
TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN THAT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONTEXT AND
FULFILLS THEIR NEEDS.
ESSENTIALLY, IT'S A ONE AND A
HALF STORY.
THE PARTICULARS ARE BEING WORKED
OUT.
WE SAW A PARTIAL SET OF PLANS
FOR THAT YESTERDAY.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD MEET THE
DISCIPLE GUIDELINES.
IT SEEMS IT WOULD.
A COMPLETE APPLICATION WAS NOT
SUBMITTED.
I DID GET AN ATTACHMENT FROM THE
APPLICANT THIS MORNING, BUT I
HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT
OR PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION FOR
YOU.
BASED ON THE APPLICATION WE
RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE,
WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL
AND WE HAVE HOPES THAT THE
APPLICANT COULD COME IN FEBRUARY
WITH THE NEW DESIGN AND WE'LL
HAVE TO REVIEW THAT AND BRING IT
TO YOU LATER.
OF COURSE, THEY WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK WITH YOU AND THE
APPLICANT.
MR. ZIGHTLAND IS HERE.
>> DO THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO WITHDRAW?
>> WE HAVE PRESENTED THAT, BUT
THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH
THE CURRENT APPLICATION.
>> CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
FOR SEAN?
THANKS.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONERS --
>> IS THIS THE NEW BUILDING?
>> COMMISSIONER, THIS IS THE NEW
CONSTRUCTION NOT REVIEWED YET.
THEY HAVE A POLICY NOT TO ACCEPT
NEW INFORMATION, SO IT'S UP TO
THEM WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD
LIKE TO ACCEPT IT.
>> UNLESS PEOPLE DISAGREE, WE
DON'T WANT TO SEE STUFF NOT
REVIEWED BY STAFF.
WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE
PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
>> OKAY.
THIS IS A STREET THAT REALLY
DOES NOT HAVE CONTEXT IN THAT
THE STAFF HAS RECOGNIZED THAT
90% OF THE EXISTING HOMES ARE
NONCONTRIBUTING.
WHEN I MET WITH THEM ORIGINALLY,
I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD A
HARDSHIP, AFTER TALKING TO TIM,
WITH A 33 FEET WIDE LOT, IT
DIDN'T PROVIDE A LOT OF
FLEXIBILITY.
AT THE TIME, DID NOT FEEL LIKE I
COULD DO A ONE AND A HALF STORY
THAT WOULD BE MARKETABLE.
I WENT TO THE BOARD -- TO STAFF,
WITH PHOTOG PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAT
OF CONTEXT BECAUSE THEY ARE
BEAUTIFUL STREETS WITH A GOOD
BALANCE OF CONTRIBUTING HOMES.
CERTAINLY, THERE ARE TWO
STORIES.
TO JUST SAY "WE ARE NOT
ACCEPTING TWO STORIES ON THE
STREET THAT IS A TRANSITIONAL
STREET" I DON'T THINK IS
APPROPRIATE AND I THINK IS
ARBITRARY.
TRYING TO WORK IN A COOPERATIVE
NATURE, I MET WITH OUR DESIGNER
AND WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH
A DESIGN ON A ONE AND A HALF
STORY WHICH IS HERE TODAY.
BASED ON THE HARDSHIP AND
LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT, WE HAVE
MADE THE CHANGES FROM THE
ORIGINAL PLANS FIT IN CONTEXT TO
THE OVERALL COMMUNITY.
AGAIN, TRYING TO WORK IN
COOPERATION AND NOT BATTLING, I
HAVE COME UP WITH A ONE AND A
HALF STORY THAT I CONSIDER
MARKETABLE AND I'M WILLING TO
WORK WITH STAFF IN ANYWAY
POSSIBLE TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE
ONE AND A HALF STORY.
I DO NOT HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY
BECAUSE OF CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS
TO DEFER UNTIL FEBRUARY.
I WOULD PROBABLY LOSE THE LOTS.
I WOULD ASK THIS COMMISSION TO
DO OPTION A OR B.
ONE IS APPROVE AS IS WITH
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT OF THE
TWO STREETS THAT ADJOIN OR ARE
PERPENDICULAR TO LILLIAN, OR TO
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OF THE
NEW ONE AND A HALF STORY TO WORK
THROUGH THE ISSUES WITH STAFF.
WITH THE NEW ONE STOP SHOP
BILLING PERMITS, THERE IS NO
WAY, IF I CAN'T COME UP AND
AGREE WITH STAFF, THERE IS NO
WAY I CAN GET A BUILDING PERMIT.
I ASK THE
UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE MET WITH
STAFF AND SEAN HAS BEEN GREAT TO
WORK WITH, BUT UNDER THE
HARDSHIP OF THE NARROWNESS OF
THE LOT AND UNDER CONSTRAINT OF
CONSTRUCTION, I WOULD ASK NOT TO
DEFER BUT ACCEPT OPTION A OR B
WITH CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> CHAIR: I GUESS, FIRST, IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK OR HAS QUESTIONS?
A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.
THERE IS NO WAY THIS COULD FALL
UNDER SOMETHING THAT YOU
COULD -- AFTER YOU REVIEW IT,
COULD APPROVE IT WITHOUT COMING
BACK TO THE COMMISSION, IS IT?
>> IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO YOU.
THE NEW DRAWINGS ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.
HE'S DONE A GREAT JOB AND HAS
BEEN GOOD TO WORK WITH TO COME
UP WITH AN APPROPRIATE DESIGN.
IT HASN'T BEEN REVIEWED.
PART OF IT WAS RECEIVED
YESTERDAY AND THE OTHER PART
TODAY.
IT'S NOT SIMILAR TO THIS ONE TO
SAY, OKAY ON THIS ONE WITH
CONDITIONS.
THAT'S UP TO YOU.
>> CHAIR: I DON'T THINK WE CAN
TRULY REVIEW WHAT IS NOT HERE.
WE CAN GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY
TO, IF IT MEETS EVERY GUIDELINE,
FOR YOU TO JUDGE IT ON YOUR OWN.
WE CAN ONLY JUDGE WHAT'S IN
FRONT OF US.
>> CAN WE TURN IT OVER TO STAFF?
IS THAT THE OPTION?
>> CHAIR: THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING
WE WANT TO DO OR NOT.
IT'S THE ONLY OPTION THAT WOULD
HELP HIM.
OTHERWISE, WE CAN'T VOTE ON
SOMETHING ELSE.
>> SUPPOSE WE -- WOULD WE HAVE
THE OPTION TO BOTH APPROVE
WHAT'S BEFORE US AND GIVE STAFF
THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
ADMINIADMINISTRATIVELY, INFILL A
ONE AND A HALF STORY OPTION
ASSUMING THEY AGREE THAT THEY
ARE APPROVING IT, DON'T HAVE
ISSUES WITH THE DESIGN.
IF THEY HAVE ISSUES WITH THE
DESIGN, THEY'LL BRING IT BACK TO
US, WHICH IS HOW AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WORKS.
THAT WOULD BE ONE OPTION AS
WELL.
>> YEAH.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO GET TOO MUCH
INTO CRITIQUING -- TRYING TO
REDESIGN THIS, IF THAT'S WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING.
>> I'M SAYING IF THIS COMMISSION
AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT THAT
90% OF THE STREET IS
NONCONTRIBUTING, THERE ARE OTHER
TWO STORY HOMES IN THE DISTRICT.
THERE IS A NARROWNESS TO THE LOT
ISSUE THAT THEY WERE RESPONDING
TO HERE.
THIS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
>> IF WE DID APPROVE IT.
>> RIGHT.
THAT WE COULD ALSO APPROVE STAFF
MAKING AN ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL BASED ON THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES OF THE ONE AND A HALF
STORY OPTION.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHERE WE
ARE HEADED.
>> UNLESS ANYONE HAS OTHER
COMMENT, WE'LL REVIEW WHAT IS
BEFORE US AND MAKE OUR JUDGMENT.
WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
THAT'S ALL WE REALLY CAN DO.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU HAVE
A COUPLE OF LOTS HAVE BEEN
MENTIONED.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS
BEING SUBMITTED FALLS UNDER NEW
INFORMATION, THEN YOU HAVE A
RULE THAT PROHIBITS,
ESSENTIALLY, THE CONSIDERATION
OF NEW INFORMATION AND NEW
INFORMATION HAS A DEFINITION,
AND I WANTED TO READ THAT FOR
YOU IN CASE IT WAS HELPFUL AS
YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION.
IT SAYS, THE APPLICANT OR HIS
REPRESENTATIVE MAY NOT PROVIDE
NEW INFORMATION AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
NEW INFORMATION IS SUBSTANTIVELY
INCONSISTENT IN ANY MATERIAL
RESPECT WITH THE0?': APPLICATIOS
SUBMITTED BY THE DEADLINE.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE THE JUDGE OF
WHETHER OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STAFF, IT'S NEW INFORMATION
OR NOT.
IF YOU THINK IT IS, IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, BECAUSE IT'S
GOING FROM TWO STORY TO ONE
STORY OR IS DRAMATICALLY
DIFFERENT IN RECOMMENDATION FROM
STAFF THAT IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
DEADLINE, THEN YOU HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT THAT GOS TO
SECTION EIGHT OF YOUR RULES THAT
TALKS ABOUT INTERCEPTION OF THE
RULES.
IT SAYS THE COMMISSION IS THE
FINAL AUTHORITY OF THE MEETING
OF THE RULES.
FROM TIME TO TIME, THEY MAY MAKE
EXCEPTIONS.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO CREATIVELY LOOK
AT THIS AND WAYS IT COULD BE
ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED
OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE BEFORE YOU
TODAY, YOU NEED TO BE SURE YOU
HAVE SET OUT YOUR REASONING AS
TO WHY THAT'S NECESSARY AND WHAT
MAKES THIS AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE
AS OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER CASE
WHERE AN APPLICANT WERE TO COME
AND HAVE A REVISED PLAN THAT MAY
MEET STAFF APPROVAL.
I WANT TODAY GIVE YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THAT.
>> MY COMMENT ABOUT ACCEPTING
THAT, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE
HARDSHIP AND TIME CONSTRAINTS,
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE
PUTTING THE TIME CONSTRAINT ON
THE STAFF TO EVALUATE THIS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY CASE THEY
HAVE BEFORE THEM.
MY SUGGESTION IS, IF IN FACT WE
WANT TO REVIEW WHAT HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THIS, WE'LL DISCUSS
THAT.
IF HE HAS THE OPTION TO COME
BACK WITH THE ONE AND A HALF
STORY.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TOO,
ROSE?
>> WELL, IN LINE WITH WHAT SUSAN
SAID, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE
DIFFICULT FOR SU SE US TO REVIE.
IT CHANGES DRAMATICALLY.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN REVIEW
WHAT'S BEFORE US.
IF WE DO, IT'S DONE.
THERE'S NO NEED TO COME BACK.
UNLESS WE CHANGE OUR MINDS AND
REVIEW THE NEW INFORMATION AND
LET STAFF GO BACK TO WORK WITH
THIS GENTLEMAN AND HELP HIM NOT
TO HAVE TO GO AS FAR AS
FEBRUARY, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE
HAVE ANOTHER OPTION OTHER THAN
TO LOOK AT THIS NOW AND LIFT OUR
RULE FOR THIS PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> CHAIR: UNFORTUNATELY, I'M
OPEN TO THE COMMISSION, BUT I
THINK I'M A LITTLE -- BECAUSE OF
OTHER CASES, WARY OF RECEIVING
THE INFORMATION.
WE HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF
CONFUSION WHEN IT'S BEEN A BIG
DIFFERENCE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE BEEN TRYING
TO STICK TO THAT.
I THINK IF THE APPLICANT FEELS
IT'S NOT WARRANTED TO DEFER, WE
HAVE TO REVIEW THE CASE BEFORE
US RIGHT NOW.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE
TO DO.
>> LET'S JUST REVIEW THE CASE
BEFORE US.
UNLESS YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND,
WE'LL REVIEW THIS ONE.
OKAY?
WE HAVE HAD COMMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T GIVE YOU
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE
APPLICANT QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT?
I KNEW WHERE I WAS GOING SO --
>> I HAVE ONE FOR STAFF.
ACTUALLY, FOR SHAWNA.
I KNOW YOU HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE
TO LOOK AT THE NEW DRAWINGS
MUCH.
HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO BLOOK T
THEM AT ALL?
>> JUST YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
>> I'M READING FROM THE STAFF
HERE.
THERE IS A WHOLE LIST OF
PROBLEMS STATED HERE.
HAS HE MET -- GIVE ME AN
EDUCATED GUESS.
HAS HE WORKED -- ASIDE FROM THE
ONE AND A HALF STORY HEIGHT, HAS
HE WORKED WITH WINDOWS, SET
BACKS, ARE WE CURING ALL OF THE
AILS?
>> YESTERDAY, IT LOOKED LIKE THE
WINDOWS WERE APPROPRIATE.
AS FAR AS OTHER GUIDELINES, I
DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE.
THE HEIGHT, THE ROOF FORM AND
THE WINDOW PROPORTION, BUT I
DON'T KNOW HOW WIDE IT IS OR
WHAT THE SET BACKS WOULD BE.
>> I DON'T WANT TO TALK TOO MUCH
ABOUT THAT BECAUSE, IF WE DO IT,
WE MIGHT AS WELL LOOK AT IT AND
OPEN UP THAT CAN OF WORMS.
UNLESS, LIKE I SAID, THIS
COMMISSION FEELS DIFFERENTLY,
BUT I FEEL WE SHOULD REVIEW THE
DRAWINGS WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US
RIGHT NOW.
>> TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER WE ACCEPT -- DO WE NEED
TO VOTE ON THAT?
>> IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AN
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, THERE HAS
TO BE A VOTE.
THEN YOU WOULD NEED A SECOND AND
DISCUSSION AND VOTE.
IF THERE IS NO MOTION, THEN YOU
HAVE NOT WAIVED YOUR RULE.
>> DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?
>> SOMEBODY CALLED FOR THE
QUESTION.
THAT CUTS OFF DISCUSSION.
>> THE WHOLE QUESTION THING
THREW ME THERE.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE CALLING
FOR A QUESTION ON THE CASE.
>> QUESTION ON HEARING THE
MOTION.
>> OKAY.
WH
>> SO WE ARE GOING TO GO
AHEAD -- THERE IS NO MOTION.
>> ON CONTEXT, GOING BACK TO THE
APPLICATION BEFORE US, ON
CONTEXT IN THE PAST, HAVE WE
CONSIDERED STRUCTURES THAT ARE
ON THE SAME STREET OR IN THE
ADJACENT AREA NEAR THE PROPERTY
THAT WEREN'T HISTORIC BUT
OTHERWISE WERE APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION AND BILLED AS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONTEXT OR
DO WE LOOK AT THEM AS
NONHISTORIC.
I GUESS, WHAT BUCKET ARE THEY
IN?
>> TYPICALLY WE DON'T LOOK AT
HISTORIC AS THE CONTRIBUTINGIS%
FACTOR, BUT IN THIS CASE, THAT
IS WHAT IS BEING APPROVED.
AROUND THE HISTORIC CONTEXT IS
ONE AND A HALF STORIES AS WELL.
FURTHER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
THERE ARE TWO STORIES.
THERE ARE WAYS -- IF THERE WERE
NO OTHER WAY, WE WOULD HAVE
LOOKED AT THAT.
BUT HE HAS IT BUILT OUTSET BACK
TO SET BACK.
THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF
TAKING THE ATTACHED GARAGE OUT.
THERE WERE WAYS TO GET MORE
SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THE ONE AND
A HALF STORY HOME.
THERE ARE WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH
WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED
ELSEWHERE ON THE STREET.
>> THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH
THAT QUESTION.
I THINK THERE IS A RHYTHM AND
CLEAR CONTEXT FURTHER DOWN
LILLIAN BASED ON PROJECTS
APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED IN THE
LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS.
THIS DOESN'T LOOK A LOT LIKE
THEM.
THEY ARE ONE AND A HALF.
THEY ARE BIG HOUSES, BUT THEY
DON'T APPEAR THAT WAY FROM THE
STREET SO MUCH.
I WOULD BE -- I'M INCLINED TO
LOOK AT THAT CONTEXT AND THE
AREA AROUND THE STREET WHICH
AGAIN, A LOT OF TIMES WE TALK
ABOUT IT BEING NEGLECTED, BUT
THERE ARE NOT MANY EXAMPLES OF
TWO STORY HOMES IN THIS
IMMEDIATE AREA.
>> CHAIR: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION
ABOUT IT?
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
OR A MOTION?
>> I THINK WE HAVE HAD THIS
CONVERSATION PREVIOUSLY.
ALTHOUGH WE MAY NOT ALL AGREE
THAT THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORIC
NEIGHBORHOODS, ONE STORY -- ONE
AND A HALF STORY, TWO STORY
HOMES ARE MIXED TOGETHER AND
CREATE A CONTEXT THAT'S -- YOU
KNOW, IN MOST CASES -- A GREAT
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T NECESSARILY FIND,
ESPECIALLY WHEN 90% OF THE HOMES
ARE NONCONTRIBUTING, I DON'T
NECESSARILY FIND TWO STORIES OUT
OF SCALE OR OUT OF CONTEXT.
THEN AGAIN, WE MAY HAVE
DIFFERENCES AMONG THE COMMISSION
ON HOW WE INTERPRET THE
GUIDELINES.
YOU LOOK ACROSS THIS DISTRICT AS
WELL AS ALL OF OUR DISTRICTS,
HOMES WERE ONE AND TWO STORIES
ON THE SAME STREET IN THE SAME
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS ONE HAPPENS TO HAVE ONE AND
ONE AND A HALF STORIES MOST OF
WHICH ARE NONCONTRIBUTING.
I THINK IT'S A CHALLENGING TWO
OR THREE LOTS THERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER LOTS
AROUND THERE, THEY APPEAR TO BE
50 OR 60-FOOT LOTS IN SOME
CASES.
I'M NOT SURE I'M NECESSARILY
POSED TO THE SCALE AND HEIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THE
OTHER MENTIONED -- AND I GUESS
SET BACKS ARE PARTLY DUE TO THE
SIZE OF THE LOTS.
THE RHYTHM OF SPACING, WINDOWS
AND DOORS, MATERIALS,
PROPORTION, ALL OF THOSE ARE
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF
DISAPPROVAL.
CAN STAFF ELABORATE ON SOME OF
THOSE MATERIALS?
>> SURE.
I GUESS WE MAINLY FOCUS ON
HEIGHT.
ANOTHER ASPECT, THE WIDTH OF THE
STRUCTURES, 19 FEET.
THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD
UP TO 23 FEET AND MEET SET
BACKS.
THE COMMISSION CAN APPROVE WITH
LESS SIDE SET BACKS.
THE WIDTH OF TE THE BUILDING
NARROWER THAN NEED BE FOR THE
LOTS IS SOMETHING STAFF FELT
WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
SPACING ESTABLISHED BY THE
EXISTING HOUSES.
MATERIALS -- NOT MUCH IS KNOWN
ABOUT THE MATERIALS.
THAT'S WHY THAT WAS A
CONDITION -- A SORT OF STANDARD,
HOW WE SAY THE MATERIALS OF THE
WINDOWS AND ROOF COLOR AND PORCH
COLUMNS AND ROOF MATERIALS,
THOSE THINGS HAVE NOT BEEN
INDICAINDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS.
WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET DESIGN
DEADLINES COULD BE APPROVED BY
STAFF LATER.
THE WINDOW ON THE RIGHT WAS
IRREGULAR AS OPPOSED TO TA
STANDARD -- NOT STANDARD BUT
CONSISTENT SPACING AS YOU FIND
ON HISTORIC HOUSES.
TYPICALLY, YOU DON'T SEE A WALL
SPACE GREATER THAN 10 OR 12 FEET
WITHOUT IT OR OPENING.
GIVEN THAT THIS IS A 60-FOOT
STRUCTURE, IT HAS A GOOD NUMBER
OF WINDOWS, BUT THE SPACING WAS
IRREGULAR THAN YOU TYPICALLY
FIND.
ROOFING, ORIENTATION TO THE
STREET, YOU CAN SEE, IT WOULD
MATCH THE ALIGNMENT OF OTHER
HOUSES ON THE STREET.
THE HEIGHT AND SCALE RELATED AND
THE FINAL ITEM IN THE
GUIDELINES, SECTION 2B-8, OUT
BUILDING, AN ATTACHED GARAGE IS
TECHNICALLY NOT AN OUT BUILDING,
BUT IT'S A 500 SQUARE FOOT
ATTACHED BASEMENT LEVEL GARAGE.
IF YOU WERE TO DETACH IT AND PUT
IT IN THE BACK TO THE ALLEY,
WHICH IS TYPICAL OF HISTORIC
HOUSES, THAT WOULD HELP TO
REDUCE THE MASSING OF THE HEIGHT
WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE
ACCOMPLISHED WITH A ONE AND A
HALF STORY VERSION.
>> TO DIRECT YOUR COMMENT, I
THINK WE DO SOMETIMES DISAGREE
ON THE SCALE AND THAT SORT OF
THING.
I TRY TO REMIND MYSELF OF YOUR
POSITION.
I HAVE COME AROUND TO
ACKNOWLEDGING A LOT OF THESE ARE
ECLECTIC AND YOU DON'T NEED A
SCALE, JUST CERTAIN PARAMETERS.
I THINK THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT
FOR ONE PRIMARY REASON.
IT'S 19 FEET WIDE AND 32 OR
33 FEET TALL WHICH I DON'T THINK
YOU CAN FIND AN EXAMPLE OF THAT
ANYWHERE.
IT'S DRIVEN BY THE SIZE OF THE
LOT AND THE LOTS BEING UNUSUALLY
NARROW.
THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE LOT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT IN
ITSELF I WOULD BE INCLINED TO
MAKE AN EXCEPTION OF THAT.
I WOULD RATHER SEE THE LOTS
RECOMBINED LIKE THEY WERE
ORIGINALLY.
AT THAT POINT, I THINK YOU COULD
BUILD SOMETHING TWO STORIES
SITTING ON THE LOT APPROPRIATELY
WITH SPACING.
OTHERWISE, TO WIDEN IT AS STAFF
IS SUGGESTING, TO ME, MITIGATES
THE NARROWNESS OF IT CREATING
OPENINGS IN RHYTHM BETWEEN
HOUSES GETS SMALL TOO.
THAT WOULD BE UNUSUAL.
THEY ARE CHALLENGING LOTS.
WITH THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE
TOWARD THE ONE, ONE AND A HALF
STORY.
THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT
AARON SAID.
I THINK ONCE EVERY HEARING, OR
EVERY OTHER HEARING, WE SEE
TWO-STORY HOMES GOING AGAINST
ONE AND A HALF OR ONE STORY
HOMES.
WE HAVE ASKED FOR ROOF HEIGHTS.
THERE IS A PRECEDENCE WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED OF TRYING TO KEEP
THINGS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT
STRUCTURES.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
COMMENTS?
QUESTION?
>> CAN WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE
THE DEMOLITION SEPARATELY?
I'LL MAKE A STEP FORWARD ON THE
LILLIAN 1112 THAT WE APPROVE THE
DEMOLITION OF THE
NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
>> SECOND.
>> I GUESS THAT'S OKAY TO DO
THAT?
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
DEMOLITION OF 1112 LILLIAN AND A
SECOND.
NO DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ALL OPPOSED?
THE DEMOLITION OF 1112 LILLIAN
HAS BEEN APPROVED.
I ASSUME WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT
BUILDING.
CAN WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE DESIGN OR DISAPPROVE THE
DESIGN THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF
US?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO -- TO
APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH
CONDITIONS BASED ON THE HARDSHIP
OF THE NARROW LOTS, THE LACK OF
HISTORIC CONTEXT ON THIS STREET,
AND REFERENCING STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION DUE TO OTHER TWO
STORY CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS
WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CONDITIONS THAT I WOULD PUT
ON IT IS THAT THE APPLICANT WORK
WITH THE STAFF ON THE WINDOW
PLACEMENT AND RHYTHM ON
PROVIDING APPROPRIATE MATERIALS
AND P PERTINENCE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF IF
THAT COVERS OTHER CONCERNS THAT
MAY FALL OUTSIDE OF THE
CATEGORIES OF HEIGHT?
>> WE WERE RECOMMENDING
DISAPPROVAL.
WE DIDN'T PUT CONDITIONS
TOGETHER SINCE WE HAD A PLAN TO
ADDRESS EVERYTHING.
>> OKAY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
SECOND.
>> MOTION AND SECOND.
TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, ALL
IN FAVOR?
>> AYE.
ALL OPPOSED?
>> WE BETTER DO A HAND RAISE.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE, R RAISE YR
HAND.
FIVE.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR
HAND?
FIVE.
SO WE ARE -- CAN I DO THAT?
>> IT'S FOUR AND FIVE, NOT FIVE
AND FIVE.
>> FOUR AND FIVE WITHOUT HIM
VOTING.
>> DO IT ONE MORE TIME.
I COUNTED FIVE THE FIRST TIME.
>> ALL RIGHT.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION,
RAISE YOUR HAND.
FOUR.
ALL NOT IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR
HAND?
I'LL RAISE MINE TOO.
THE MOTION FAILED.
CAN I GET A SECOND MOTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION -- CAN WE
HAVE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE
MOTION?
I CAN TELL YOU, I'M GOING TO
MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE
BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION
AND THE 12345, 12479, BUT BEFORE
ICO THAT, ASSUMING IT'S A
FLIP-FLOP AND THOSE ARE THE
VOTES, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IF
WE WANT TO RECONSIDER THE IDEA
OF THE APPLICANT WORKING WITH
STAFF TO DETERMINE IF IT'S GOING
TO BE ONE AND A HALF STORIES AND
DELEGATE THIS TO STAFF.
I'M NOT TOTALLY CONVINCED THAT
THESE ARE THE EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT THAT,
BUT I'M WILLING TO BE OPENMINDED
IF SOMEONE FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT
THAT.
>> MAYBE WE CAN HEAR FROM THE
APPLICANT?
>> IT'S JUST CIRCUMSTANCES TO
AVOID FEBRUARY.
>> YOU WANT TO OPEN PUBLIC
HEARING?
STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN.
>> THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
IS -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE KNOWS THE PLANS BEFORE
YOU ARE NOT MY ORIGINAL PLANS.
I MET WITH STAFF BASED ON THEIR
IDEAS OF CONTEXT AND HEIGHT.
WE SET DOWN AND DESIGNED THESE
PLANS WHILE SITTING WITH STAFF.
THEY FELT THAT THEY WERE MORE
APPROPRIATE IF THERE WAS TO BE A
TWO STORY.
WE CHANGED THE WINDOWS TO -- I
THINK I ADDED EIGHT WINDOWS.
THE HARDSHIP IS THAT I HAVE A
CONTRACT THAT DOESN'T GIVE ME
UNTIL FEBRUARY TO BE ABLE TO
KEEP THE PROPERTIES.
I THINK SEAN AND STAFF WILL SAY
THAT I WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH
STAFF TO MAKE A WIN/WIN
SITUATION.
THE FIRST TO STAFF WERE NOT
MARKETABLE AND I COULD NOT SELL.
HUNTER AND OTHERS WHO KNOW, THE
NARROWNESS OF A LOT, YOU DON'T
HAVE TWO SIDES.
IT'S ALL ONE SIDED.
I THINK KEITH COVINGTON WORKED
HARD TO COME UP WITH A CONCEPT
BOTH MET MORE WHAT THE STAFF
WANTED AND MY CONDITIONS THAT I
COULD TURN AROUND AND MARKET AND
SELL IT.
>> THE THING, THOUGH,ING KEITH
COVINGTON SOUNDS LIKE THE
WINNER.
THE URGENCY, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE
APPROVED YOUR DEMOLITION, ARE
YOU NOT ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD?
>> IT DOES ME NO GOOD BECAUSE
UNTIL I GET -- UNTIL I HAVE THE
CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
PERMIT, I CAN'T BUY THE LOTS
BECAUSE IF I BUY THE LOTS AND I
CAN'T BUILD IT, IT'S WORTHLESS
TO ME.
IF I DON'T -- AT THIS POINT AND
TIME, THE WAY THE CONTRACT
READS, I'M GOING TO LOSE MY
CONTRACT IF I WAIT UNTIL
FEBRUARY.
>> IS THERE AN EXPIRATION ON
YOUR CONTRACT NOW?
WHAT IS THE DATE THAT YOU CAN'T
MOVE TO FEBRUARY?
>> IT'S AFTER THE MEETING.
IF I DON'T COME TO TERMS, I
DON'T HAVE MORE TIME.
>> LET ME TAKE A SHORT PERIOD OF
TIME -- WE'LL MAKE IT AFTER THE
MEETING, APPARENTLY.
>> IT'S DUMBFOUNDING TO ME -- I
HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO TAKE THE PATH
OF BEING COMBATIVE, BUT IT WAS
DUMBFOUNDING TO ME THAT STAFF
COULD MAKE A RULING -- WHAT YOU
ALL DO AS A HISTORIC COMMISSION,
I'M 100% FOR.
I'M A THIRD GENERATION
NASHVILLEIAN.
I BELIEVE IN THE CITY, MAKES IT
WONDERFUL, BUT TO SAY YOU CAN'T
BUILD A TWO STORY WHEN I SAID
I'LL WORK WITH YOU AND WITHIN
ANY STRUCTURE, DESIGN SOMETHING
THAT YOU LIKE AND WORKS, AND
EY SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO
ACCEPT A TWO STORY, WAS
DUMBFOUNDING TO ME.
SO THAT'S WHY -- I HAD TWO
OPTIONS.
ONE IS TO PURSUE WITH THE TWO
STORY OR, WHEN I MET WITH KEITH
COVINGTON, I SINCERELY, WHEN I
MET WITH SEAN, I DIDN'T THINK WE
COULD COME UP WITH ONE AND A
HALF STORY THAT WAS MARKETABLE.
KEITH COVINGTON WORKED HARD AND
WAS ABLE TO DO THAT WHICH IS WHY
I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY I DIDN'T
THINK I WOULD HAVE.
33 FEET IS A HARDSHIP.
THERE ARE NOT MANY LOTS --
>> IT IS A HARDSHIP.
I DON'T THINK WHEN THEY TELL
YOU, YOU COULDN'T DO A TWO
STORY, THEY MEANT THERE IS NO
WAY TO DO THAT.
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS
DESIGN.
IT'S DIFFICULT WITH A 33-FOOT
LOT BECAUSE IT CREATES THE ISSUE
TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.
IT'S MUCH MORE VERTICAL THAN
WIDE.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY EXAMPLES
LIKE THAT OF A 19-FOOT WIDE
HOUSE 22 OR 33 F FEET TALL.
IT WOULD BE UNUSUAL.
IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE THE
OPTION OF ECONOMICS ASIDE, I
DON'T KNOW YOUR ECONOMICS IN
FRONT OF ME, BUT YOU OWN BOTH
LOTS --
>> I DON'T HAVE EITHER ONE.
>> YOU HAVE A CONTRACT UNDER
BOTH LOTS AND YOU ARE THE
APPLICANT.
IF YOU COMBINED THE TWO, YOU
COULD MEET THE RHYTHM AND
SPACING AND THE HOUSE WOULD BE
TALL ENOUGH TO DO TWO STO STORI.
>> IT'S NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.
THE STAFF DID SAY, NO TWO
STORIES.
IF THE ISSUE WAS THAT THEY WOULD
RATHER SEE THE HOUSE 22 AND A
HALF FEET VERSUS 19 FEET, I
COULD MAKE THAT CHANGE TOMORROW.
>> TWO STORY WAS JUST THE MAJOR
ONE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
THE MAIN THING WE WEREíÑ@ CONCED
ABOUT, AFTER THIS MEETING IF YOU
DON'T HAVE IT, SO EVEN IFEE
GAVE THEM CONDITIONAL, THAT
WOULDN'T GIVE STAFF ENOUGH TIME
TO APPROVE IT.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN HELP.
IF ANYONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS OR
CLARIFICATION?
>> CLARIFICATION FROM THE
APPLICANT, IF WE> ABSOLUTELY.
>> SO THERE IS NOTAA DEADLINE ON
CONDITION BASED UPON APPROVAL
FACE OUT?
>> IF WE MAKE AN EXCEPTION, I
WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.
>> IT'S SUBJECT TO A BUILDING
PERMIT.
>> BY WHATDADATE?
>> I PASTS.n THE DATE OF
ORIGINALLY.
WITH MER -- WOULD WORKee
IF -- TT HE'S TT G GOING T TOK
WITH ME UNTILTHE END
FEBRUA..
IF IOMOM BACK B FEUAUARY, IT
WIWILL BE E OF FEBRRY BY THE
MEME C COULD CLOSE.
DODOTT THINK WILLL WORKITIT
THTH..
>>>> EMSSODDD THAT WE ARAR
SESENG T THEAPPLICATION TER
YOUR DUEUE DILIGENCE PERIOD PASD
IF YOU NEEDED A BUILDING PERMIT
TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT ZO SEEMS .
I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT'S
EXCEPTIONAL.
THAT SEEMS LIKE -- I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE WHOLE STORY IS, BUT IT
SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING WE SHOULD
HAVE SEEN MONTHS AGO IF THAT WAS
A CONDITION TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
>> DID YOU WANTK;C]■ TO MAKE A
MOTION?
>> ANYMORE DISCUSSION?
>> IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A
COMPELLING ARGUMENT TO HEAR NEW
INFORMATION AND MAKE THE
COMPELLING ARGUMENT.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE IS A
LACK OF EMOTION.
>> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO
ADD THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO
BRING US TO THE COMMISSION
ITSELF, IS THAT IN PRACTICE?
DOES IT MATTER TO MAKE AN
EXCEPTION?
>> YOU ARE THE DECISION MAKER IN
ALL CASES.
YOU HAVE GIVEN CERTAIN THINGS TO
STAFF THAT WE COULD APPROVE
ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR YOU.
IN FILL IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
SO IN ORDER TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION
TO THAT, AGAIN, THERE HAS TO BE
A COMPELLING REASON FOR THAT.
THIS MAY NOT BE -- I DON'T KNOW
IF THIS WOULD HOLD UP IN COURT
AS A COMPELLING REASON.
WE'LL LET THE ATTORNEYS DEBATE
THAT.
I HAVE BEEN COMPELLED BY STAFF'S
COMMENTS EARLIER BASED ON THE
LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS OF WORK, OF
ADJUSTING THE DESIGN OF THE NEW
ARCHITECT WORKING ON A ONE AND A
HALF STORY WHICH IS THE ISSUE
HERE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIP ON
THE LOTS.
WE HAVE HEARD THEM.
THERE HAS BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE DISAPPROVED THE PROPOSAL ON
TWO STORIES BECAUSE OF ITS
HEIGHT.
FOR THOSE REASONS, I MOTION TO
SUSPEND OUR RULES OR EXCEPT OUR
RULES TO ALLOW STAFF TO WORK
WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE ONE
AND A HALF STORY VERSION OF
THIS.
SO LONG AS STAFF AGREES THAT,
THAT DESIGN MEETS THE GUIDELINES
THAT THEY MAY APPROVE IT
ADMINISTRATIVELY.
>> QUESTION?
>> I CONQUER WITH COMMISSIONER
GEE.
IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, I
BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE
AT THE MERCY OF STAFF FOR ANY
AND ALL DECISIONS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE
FLOOR.
WE NEED A SECOND.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD A
MOTION.
>> THAT WAS A MOTION.
>> I'LL SECOND WITH THE REQUEST
FOR DISCUSSION.
>> SECOND WITH REQUEST FOR MORE
DISCUSSION.
WE HAVE A MOTION A AND A SECOND
FOR DISCUSSION.
>> THERE IS A LONG LIST OF
THINGS STAFF DISAPPROVED ON THE
PROJECT.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT THE
NEW PLANS, SO WE PUT THIS BACK
ON THE STAFF.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS TO
TTOE THE LINE TO THE GUIDELINE R
LIKE COMMISSIONER GEE SAID, HE'S
BACK HERE IN FEBRUARY.
THAT'S ALL.
>> I THINK WE ARE PUTTING
PRESSURE ON THE STAFF.
HE NEEDS THE DECISION TODAY.
I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO ASK THE
STAFF TO REACT THAT QUICKLY ON A
COMPLETELY NEW DESIGN, ALTHOUGH
THEY HAVE WORKED WITH IT SOME.
I'M NOT COMPELLED TO PUT THAT
PRESSURE ON THE STAFF.
>> I TEND TO AGREE WITH ANN.
I THINK IT'S A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENCE THAT ANY TIME SOMEONE
HAS A TOUGH SCHEDULE, IT BECOMES
STAFF'S PROBLEM.
WE HAVE TRIED TO RESPECT THE
DEADLINES TO MANAGE THE WORKLOAD
AND TREAT APPLICANTS FAIRLY, BUT
THE FACT THAT WE ARE SEEING THIS
APPLICATION FOR THE FIRST TIME
AFTER THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD
HAS EXPIRED TO ME IS UNUSUAL AT
BEST.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY,
WHATEVER IT WAS, SEEMS SELF
CREATED.
I DON'T FEEL THAT WE SHOULD
TRANSFER THAT TO STAFF.
>> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH AARON
AND ANN ON THIS.
WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR WAS AN
EXPLANATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WERE.
I DIDN'T HEAR IT, WITH ALL
RESPECT TO YOU, I DIDN'T HEAR
IT.
YOU COULD HAVE HELPED YOURSELF
BY FILING THIS APPLICATION A
LONG TIME AGO SO YOU WOULDN'T
PUT YOURSELF IN THE SITUATION
YOU ARE IN.
I'M NOT MOVE THAD WE NEED TO PUT
THE STAFF IN A VERY HARD PLACE
HERE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THIS,
SO I AM COMPELLED TO GO ALONG
WITH AARON.
>> ONE MORE COMMENT ON THAT AS
WELL.
I SECOND AND THIRD AARON AND
OTHER TWO, IS THAT ONCE WE DO,
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCEPTION
THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE BEFORE, IT
PRESENTS ISSUES FOR THE BOARD
FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS TO MAKE
EXCEPTIONS LIKE THIS.
>> OKAY.
ANYMORE?
>> MY QUESTION, HUNTER, WAS
MAYBE SPECIFICALLY TO YOU.
YOU SOUNDED COMPELLED IN YOUR
MOTION TO HEAR -- POSSIBLY HEAR
NEW INFORMATION OR WAS YOUR
MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED?
>> MY MOTION IS TO MAKE
EXCEPTION TO OUR RULES.
>> HE WAS GOING TO WAIVE OUR
APPROVAL AND HAVE IT ALL INFILL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
TO WAIVE OUR RULE ABOUT INFILL
HOUSING ALL COME TO THE
COMMISSION.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ALL OPPOSED?
>> MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.
OKAY, SO WE ARE BACK NOW TO THE
CASE IN FRONT OF US --
>> WE HAVE ALREADY DISAPPROVED
IT, RIGHT?
>> WE HAVE NOT HAD A MOTION THAT
ACTUALLY CARRIED.
YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING.
>> I THINK WE HAVE EXHAUSTED THE
OPTION WE HAD BEFORE US.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO VOTE.
I MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE
BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION
SPECIFICALLY THAT IT'S
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE GUIDELINES
SPECIFICALLY TO BE ONE, TWO,
THREE, FOUR, SEVEN AND NINE.
>> DISCUSSION?
ALL IN FAVOR?
AYE.
LOOK TO THE HANDS AGAIN.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ALL OPPOSED?
MOTION CARRIES FOR DISAPPROVAL
OF 1112 LILLIAN STREET.
WERE THEY PRESENTED TOGETHER OR
DO WE DO THE SECOND ONE AS WELL?
>> IT'S UP TO YOU.
IF THE MOTION WAS FOR BOTH OR
FOR ONE.
WE APPROVED THE DEMOLITION.
THE INTENT WAS TO COVER BOTH.
>> DOES THE PERSON WHO SECONDED
AGREE WITH THAT?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR: OKAY.
>> AND TO CLARIFY, THE BOARD DID
A FANTASTIC JOB MEETING THAT
OUT.
>> 1816 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH.
>> I CONCUR WITH WHAT MISS JONES
SAID.
THAT WAS IMPRESSIVE.
I'M PROUD TO WORK FOR A BOARD
THAT CARES SO MUCH AND PUTS SO
MUCH CONVERSATION INTO THE
CASES.
>> YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE
WORDS LIKE "OBJECTIVE."
I'M FEELING VERY EMOTIONAL RIGHT
NOW.
>> OUR NEXT ITEM THIS AFTERNOON
IS AN APPLICATION FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION AT 1816 5TH AVENUE
NORTH.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-FAMILY
DWELLING TWO STORIES TALL WITH A
FORM, MORE OR LESS SIMILAR TO A
GABLED "L" HOUSE, SIMILAR TO
OTHERS IN THE AREA.
36 FEET TALL, 36 FEET WIDE.
TWO UNITS, IT WAS A DUPLEX, WITH
TWO UNITS STAGGERED AT THE FRONT
TO BREAK UP THE WIDTH A BIT.
THE WIDTH IS COMPATIBLE WITH
HISTORIC HOUSES IN THE AREA, 36
TO 37 FEET.
THERE IS A BUMP OUT ON THE SIDE,
BUT THAT'S -- THE WIDTH IS STILL
COMPATIBLE.
THE HEIGHT, HOWEVER, IS TALLER
THAN WHAT IS FOUND ON TWO STORY
HOUSE IN THE AREA.
THERE ARE TWO STORY HOUSES IN
THE AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ROOF PITCH
BE LOWERED TO BRING DOWN THE
RIDGE HIDE TO SOMETHING MORE
COMPATIBLE AND THIS IS SOMETHING
THE APPLICANT AGREED TO DO.
THERE ARE PICTURES OF THE
CONTEXT OF ONE AND TWO STORY
HISTORIC HOUSES.
THOSE IN THE PICTURE ARE
NONCONTRIBUTING, BUT THERE IS AT
LEAST ONE ELSEWHERE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD NOT FAR AWAY.
THE PROPORTION AND RHYTHM OF
WINDOWS ON THE FRONT IS
APPROPRIATE.
MORE WINDOWS WOULD BE NEEDED ON
THE SIDE ELEVATIONS TO BREAK UP
THE LONG WALL SPACES.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO DO
THAT AS WELL.
MATERIALS, CEMENT FIBER SIDING,
SHINGLE ROOF AND FOUNDATION TRIM
WINDOWS AND DOORS HAVE NOT BEEN
SPECIFIED.
THE STAFF WOULD NEED TO WORK
WITH APPLICANT TO APPROVE TO
ENSURE THEY IMMEDIATE THE
GUIDELINES.
ALSO PROPOSED IS A ONE STORY,
TWO-CAR GARAGE, 440-FOOT
FOOTPRINT AT THE REAR OF THE
LOT.
ONE STORY DIVIDED SO EACH OF THE
UNITS WOULD HAVE ONE BAY,
ESSENTIALLY.
THE LOCATION AND SCALE ARE
APPROPRIATE.
THE MATERIALS OF THE BUILDING
ARE NOT SPECIFIED BUT CAN BE
APPROVED BY STAFF.
WITH CONCLUSION, STAFF
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE NEW
INFILL WITH THE CONDITION THAT
THE ROOF HEIGHT IS LOWERED BY AT
LEAST THREE FEET BY LOWERING THE
ROOF PITCH, THAT THE HOUSE SET
BACKS ALIGN WITH THE HOUSE NEXT
DOOR AT 1814 5TH AVENUE NORTH,
THAT THE STAFF APPROVE ROOF
uJu AND PORCHdC9
FOUNDATION.
STAFF APPROVE WINDOW PLACEMENT
FOR THE SIDE ELEVATIONS AND THE
WINDOW MATERIALS AND ALSO FOR
THE MATERIALS OF THE OUT
BUILDING AND LASTLY, FOR
CONDITIONS THAT THE EXTERNAL AC
UNIT BE BEHIND THE MIDPOINTS OF
THE STRUCTURE.
WITH THOSE CONDITIONS MET, STAFF
PROPOSES SALE AND MEETS
GUIDELINES.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?
>> THE RIGHT SIDE AND LEFT SIDE
ELEVATION, IS THERE A CONCERN
ABOUT THE LACK OF WINDOWS?
>> T THEY ARE GOING TO ADD THREE
WINDOWS --
>> THAT HAS BEEN --
>> YEAH.
THEY HAVE WORKED IT OUT BUT IT'S
NOT FINALIZED.
ONE IN THE FRONT AND TWO IN THE
BACK.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> OKAY.
>> ONE OTHER QUESTION.
WHEN YOU SAY IT'S A LINEUP WITH
AN ADJACENT HOME, IT'S STILL
OFFSET?
>> I WAS GOING TO REMIND YOU TO
TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONES, AND I
DID THE SAME THING.
THE LEADING EDGE OF THE
STRUCTURE WOULD MATCH THE
LEADING EDGE OF THE HOUSE IN THE
TOP PICTURE.
ONE STORY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M SORRY, IF THE APPLICANT IS
HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO COME
FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS?
>> I'M ROBBY YORK.
IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK
WITH STAFF.
THEY HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY NICE.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE DILIGENT WITH
THE LAST ONE AS WELL.
I WOULD COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH
CONDITIONS, LOWERS THE ROOF OR
ADDING WINDOWS, THAT'S FINE WITH
ME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ONE QUICK ONE FOR YOU.
THIS IS A RATHER DETAILED -- THE
FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS THE UPPER
STORY WINDOWS ARE SITTING AS YOU
HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCT
ABILITYWISE, IT MAY NOT END UP
LIKE THAT, BUT IS THERE CONCERN
THAT THE WINDOW MIGHT EASE UP A
BIT?
IS IT TYPICALLY HOW IT'S BUILT?
IS THIS THE FIRST TIME FOR THE
PLAN?
IT CAN CREATE PROBLEMS AND HAS
TO DO WITH HOW THE WINDOWS ARE
PLACED AND HOW THE FRONT
ELEVATION APPEARS?
>> IT WOULD BE EASY TO RAISE
THAT A BIT.
I CAN LOWER THE ELEVATION OF THE
PORCH A PITCH AND THAT WOULD
BRING IT DOWN SIX INCHES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK
REGARDING THIS PROJECT?
OKAY.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSION?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SORRY, SEAN.
I'M READING THE BULLET POINTS
HERE ON THE FRONT OF THE STAFF
REPORT.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT
WINDOW LOCATIONS AND
PROPORTIONS.
DID YOU SAY THAT'S A
CONDITION -- ADDITIONAL WINDOWS?
>> YES.
>> THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MIXED
UP HERE.
>> ENDORSE SELECTIONS?
>> SELECTIONS NOT LOCATIONS.
>> YES.
MAYBE I DIDN'T SPECIFY.
IN THAT I MEAN THE LOCATION OF
WINDOWS ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS.
IF THAT'S NOT CLEAR, I
APOLOGIZE.
MAYBE THAT CAN BE ADDED.
>> YOU SHOW WHERE YOU RECOMMEND
WINDOWS.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT YOUR
THOUGHTS ARE?
>> YEAH.
ACTUALLY.
MR. YORK AND I SAT DOWN WITH A
SET OF PLANS AND I THINK HE HAS
THAT COPY.
WE MARKED A FEW PLACES.
MAYBE I CAN GO OVER IT WITH THE
MOUSE HERE.
ON THE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION, HERE
ROUGHLY IN THE -- I THINK IT'S4÷
PROBABLY A BEDROOM, BUT THE
SECOND STORY THERE, MAYBE -- I
THINK THIS IS A BATHROOM HERE.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
TWO WINDOWS ON THIS SIDE.
POSSIBLY ONE IN THE REAR.
STAFF DOESN'T HAVE MUCH CONCERN
WITH THE WALL SPACE SO FAR.
ESSENTIALLY, THE SAME THING ON
THE RIGHT ELEVATION.
ON ONE OF THESE, PERHAPS THE
LEFT ONE, THEY MENTIONED
ELIMINATING THIS POP OUT.
IF THAT HAPPENED, IT WOULD BE
FINE, BUT TO MAINTAIN THE RHYTHM
BY MAKING SURE THERE IS A WINDOW
THERE EVEN IF IT DOESN'T
PROJECT.
>> GREAT.
THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE, THIS
IS A CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
IS THERE OVERLAY?
IS IT THE SAME AS LOCKLAND
SPRINGS, THE PREVIOUS CASE?
>> IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
THERE MAY BE MORE SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO HEIGHT
FOR THIS DISTRICT AS LOCKLAND
SPRINGS IS MORE CON TECTUAL
BASED.
>> THERE IS A 35-FOOT LIMIT
PERIOD.
>> TWO STORY HOUSES WE
REFERENCED IN RESEARCHING A
PREVIOUS APPLICATION CLOSE
ENOUGH THAT THE RESEARCH APPLIED
FOR TWO-STORY STRUCTURES BETWEEN
24 TO 32 FEET, SO LOWERING IT
SEVEN FEET WOULD BRING DOWN THE
HEIGHT TO MATCH THAT.
THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR
THIS ONE.
>> I GUESS I'LL LOOK AT THE
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SEE ALL
ONE AND ONE AND A HALF STORY
BUILDINGS AND MANY OF WHICH ARE
PROBABLY CONTRIBUTING -- THEY
APPEAR TO BE, AND
NONCONTRIBUTING.
I WORRY ABOUT CONSISTENCY.
UNLESS THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT
HAS MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF
HEIGHT AND BEING COMPATIBLE OR
CONSISTENT WITH HISTORIC
CONTEXT --
>> IT DOES.
THERE IS REALLY ONLY ONE
HISTORIC BUILDING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS TWO
STORIES, BUT PUTTING THE
GUIDELINES TOGETHER, THE
NEIGHBORHOOD FELT THERE WAS SO
MUCH NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS
TWO STORIES, NOT HISTORIC
CONTEXT YOU TYPICALLY LOOK AT,
THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO GO THAT
ROUTE AND DENY TWO STORIES.
WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP TWO
STORIES TO A MINIMUM AND KEEP A
GOOD CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
WIDTH AND HEIGHT SO THE MASSING
STAYS TRUE AS POSSIBLE TO THE
CONTEXT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT AS
WELL.
BEFORE THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY,
WERE THERE NEW BUILDINGS THAT
HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED THEREFORE
THERE WOULD BE THAT CONTEXT OF
HIGHER HEIGHT OF ROOF VERSUS
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
>> TYPICALLY, YOU WOULDN'T LOOK
AT THE NONHISTORIC CONTEXT, BUT
THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER
YOU ARE DEALING WITH IN TERMS OF
HISTORIC CONTEXT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
A MOTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ADDING
UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE
SURE THE ADDITIONAL WINDOWS ARE
MADE TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT
ELEVATION.
>> ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES.
THE NEXT ONE -- THE NEXT ONE IS
12:10 12:10 GARTLAND AVENUE.
1210 GARTLAND AVENUE IS AN
APPLICATION FOR A TWO BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION.
IT WAS APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION
LAST MONTH AND I UNDERSTAND WAS
BULLDOZED YESTERDAY.
THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS TWO
AND A HALF STORIES WITH A CROSS
GABLE AND ROOF CLAD FIBER LAY
SIDING, WINDOWS UNUSUALLY
NARROW.
STAFF ASKED THAT THEY BE WIDER
THAN TWO FEET MAINTAINING
HISTORIC PROPORTION.
THE NEW BUILDING MEETS
GUIDELINES FOR SET BACK AND
RHYTHM AND SPACING.
THE SET BACK DOESN'T SHOW
ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
STAFF ASKED THAT THE FRONT LINE
UP WITH THE NEIGHBORING HOMES.
THE FRONT LEADING WALL WOULD BE
IN LINE WITH THE ESTABLISHED SET
BACK.
THE NEW STRUCTURE MEETS
GUIDELINES FOR HEIGHT AND SCALE.
THE HEIGHT IS BETWEEN THAT OF
THE MEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL WITHIN THE
BLOCK OF THIS HEIGHT OR TALLER.
SIDE DORMERS ARE PRESENT
ELSEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
INCLUDING ONE OF THE HOMES NEXT
DOOR.
THE GARAGE WILL BE LOCATED AT
THE REAR OF THE LOT WHICH IS
APPROPRIATE.
A SET BACK DETERMINATION IS
REQUESTED FROM 10 FEET TO
6 FEET.
SEVERAL HAVE BEEN BUILT SIX FEET
TO THE ALLEY.
OTHER A APPERT INANCES ARE THREE
FEET BACK.
STAFF FINDS THE INFILL
CONSTRUCTION MEETS GUIDELINES
FOR MATERIALS, OUT BUILDING AND
APPERT NAN CES.
THE VIEW ACROSS THE STREET AND
THE LEFT AND RIGHT FROM THE
SITE.
IN CONCLUSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION
WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE FRONT
WALL OF THE HOUSE BE PLACED IN
LINE WITH FRONT WALLS TO ITS
SIDE.
THE WINDOWS WIDER THAN TWO FEET
YET MAINTAIN HISTORIC
PROPORTION.
BE LOCATED ON THE FACADE, ON THE
MIDPOINT OF THE HOUSE, THE SIX
FOOT FENCE AND THREE FOOT
MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING.
STAFF WILL REVIEW THE PROJECT
AND REVISED DRAWINGS SUBMITTED
PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE PERMIT
SHOWING THE FOUNDATION HEIGHT,
SCALE AND ANY OTHER REVISIONS.
>> OKAY.
QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE ONE.
IT APPEARS THERE IS A BAND
AROUND -- WELL, THE DECK IN THE
BACK CREATE THE STRUCTURE THAT
CREATES A BAND AROUND THE HOUSE
WHICH CONTINUES AROUND THE RIGHT
AND LEFT SIDE ELEVATIONS.
IT APPEARS, IT'S NOTICEABLY NOTY
ABSENT FROM THE FRONT.
WITHOUT THE SIDING KIND OF BEING
REPRESENTED IN THE DRAWINGS, IS
THAT OF CONCERN?
>> YES, IT IS TO ME.
IT SEEMS ODD YOU WOULDN'T
CONTINUE THE BAND AROUND THE
HOUSE.
>> A MATTER OF ELEVATION.
>> THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO HELP
US.
WAS IT YOUR INTENT TO CONTINUE
THAT ON THE FRONT ELEVATION?
>> IT WILL WRAP AROUND THE WHOLE
HOUSE.
>> OKAY.
>> HOW MANY TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS
DO WE HAVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD?
IS THERE A LARGE AMOUNT?
>> I COULDN'T SAY, SIR.
>> OKAY.
>> THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORS
ARE HERE TO DISCUSS.
>> WOULD THE APPLICANT COME
FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS?
>> MY NAME IS DEVON JENKINS, 900
TOAD LANE, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.
I HAVE WORKED WITH PAUL AND I
HAVE ALREADY DONE A FEW THINGS
THAT THEY TOLD ME THEY NEEDED TO
DO.
I HAVE THAT HERE TODAY.
I'M WILLING TO MAKE ANY
ADJUSTMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE A APPLICA?
YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH THE
CONDITIONS AND FEEL COMFORTABLE?
>> YES.
>> ONE QUESTION, THERE IS
SOMETHING IN THE TEXT IN STAFF'S
SUMMARY ABOUT THE FOUNDATION
HEIGHT AND YOU SAY IT MAY NOT BE
CORRECT ON THE DRAWING.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS NOW?
>> IT'S 32-INCHES.
32-INCHES MINIMUM ALL THE WAY
AROUND.
THAT'S FOUR BLOCKS WHICH IS
RECOMMENDED.
I HAVE THAT ON ONE I WAS GIVEN
TODAY.
I HAD A PREVIOUS PLAN WITH 32 IN
THE BACK.
IT DIDN'T HAVE THAT IN THE
FRONT.
I THINK IT HAD -- IT DIDN'T HAVE
THAT IN THE FRONT.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.'?;y■
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK
REGARDING THIS PROJECT?
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M@,H PAUL WHEEL, 1206 SCOTLAND
AVENUE.
I THINK A BASIC OBSERVATION
WOULD BE, OR PERCEPTION IS THAT
THIS PROPERTY'S CONCEPT IS
UNIQUE FROM THE BLOCK, 1200 TO
141400 TO 1,600 GARTLAND.
TO MAKE A DISTINCTION, WE HAVE
NO OBJECTION TO TOWNHOUSES.
THEY ARE FINE WHEN CLOSER
TOGETHER, BUT IN THIS SITUATION,
AS A STAND ALONE THING, IT
LOOKS -- VISUALLY, INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THE STREET.
THE REST OF THE STREET IS SINGLE
FAMILY VICTORIANS.
THAT'S THE OVERALL FEEL OF THE
STREET WITH TRADITIONAL PORCHES
ALONG THE WIDTH OF THE HOUSE.
CREATING THE SENSE OF HISTORIC.
IN TERMS OF SCALE, THE HEIGHT OF
THE HOUSE IS 35 FEET, IN
RELATION TO 1212, 39 FEET,
THAT'S OKAY.
OUR HOUSES ARE TRADITIONALLY ON
THE STREET ABOUT 25 TO 2600 FEET
IN HEIGHT.
IT'S GOING TO LOOM OVER EVEN THE
HOUSE NEXT DOOR WHICH IS QUITE
TALL AT 32 FEET.
HEIGHT WISE, IT'S GOING TO
PRESENT A PROBLEM FOR US.
IN TERMS OF THAT, IT'S 64 FEET
IN.
THERE WILL BE SIX FOOT SMALL
LANDINGS OFF THE FRONT AND SIX
FOOT OFF THE REAR.
THERE'S GOING TO BE NOTHING
QUITE AS DEEP AS THAT ON OUR
BLOCK.
OF THAT, I'M CERTAIN.
IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND DEBT, WE
DEPTH, WEHAVE ISSUES.
IN TERMS OF BACKYARD, THAT WILL
EAT INTO OUR BACKYARDS.
OUR BACKYARDS ARE PRECIOUS.
WE LIKE BEING IN OUR BACKYARDS.
>> THAT'S TWO MINUTES.
>> COULD I SUMMARIZE?
>> CONCEPT IS -- OF THE TWO
STORY TOWNHOUSE WHERE THERE IS
NOT ONE OF DESIGN AND SCALE, THE
LIFESTYLE IMPACT LOOMING OVER
OUR PROPERTIES AND THE TIMELINE,
WE WERE GIVEN FOUR DAYS TO EVEN
BECOME AWARE OF THIS AND ARE
DISAPPOINTED ABOUT THE DESIGN OF
SCALE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I'M ANGELA.
I LIVE AT 1208 GARTLAND.
MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED THERE IN
SEPTEMBER, FILLED OUR 20-ACRES
AND BOUGHT OUR DREAMY VICTORIAN.
THIS IS A PREMIER STREET.
I KNOW OF ONE OTHER HOUSE WITH A
GUEST COTTAGE IN THE BACK, DOWN
ON THE CORNER.
I LOOKED AT THE SPOT AND THE
PLANS.
IT WILL BE HUGE.
MOST HOUSES ARE 2,000, I'M
GUESSING.
THIS IS A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT
DWELLING, FIVE TIMES THE SIZE OF
THE HOUSE IT'S REPLACING.
THAT'S A LOT.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A FENCE
DIVIDING THE BACKYARD.
WE CAN SEE THE BACKYARDS.
THAT'S ANOTHER ODD THING.
THE TOWNHOUSE LOOK IS VERY
DIFFERENT.
THE ORIGINAL DUPLEX HAD ONE
FRONT DOOR.
IT LOOKED LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING FROM THE FRONT.
ALSO, THE HOMES HAVE BIG
WELCOMING FRONT PORCHES.
IT'S WELCOMING AND PRETTY.
WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPERS NEED
TO MAXIMIZE THEIR INVESTMENT, I
GET IT, BUT THE BIG PICTURE HERE
IS ABOUT PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE.
WE FEEL EAST NASHVILLE IS GREAT,
QUIRKY, FUN AND HISTORICAL.
WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU
IN MAKING YOU BE ABLE TO MAKE
YOUR NET ON THIS HOUSE AND FOR
US TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A
BEAUTIFUL STREET TO LIVE ON.
IT'S A PREMIER STREET AND WE
TREASURE IT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR: ANY OTHERS?
>> OKAY, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSION?
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR
STAFF.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE BEING DEMOLISHED WAS
ALSO A DUPLEX, SINGLE FAMILY
HOME?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR ABOUT
THE SET BACK.
COULD YOU WALK ME THROUGH THAT?
>> REGARDING THE FRONT?
>> THE FRONT OR BACK OR --
>> THE SET BACK DETERMINATION
REQUESTED IS FOR THE GARAGE --
TO HAVE THAT MOVED TO SIX FEET
WHICH IS APPROPRIATE VERSUS TEN.
SIX FEET IS APPROPRIATE.
THERE ARE OUT BUILDINGS CLOSER
TO THE LINE THAN THAT CURRENTLY.
REGARDING THE FRONT SET BACK,
THAT WAS BECAUSE THE SI SITE PLN
DOESN'T SHOW THE ADJACENT HOMES,
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IT
MAINTAINS THE SET BACK THAT'S
ESTABLISHED ON THE STREET.
>> THE REAR SET BACK GOES TO AN
ALLEY, CORRECT?
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF
GRASSY GRASS?
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM MOVED
BY THE -- THE FOLKS THAT OPPOSED
THE C CONCEPT AND DESIGN.
CH THERE IS ALSO AN E-MAIL WE
RECEIVED.
I READ IT THIS MORNING.
WE PROBABLY RECEIVED IT THE DAY
BEFORE.
IT WAS FROM A VANDERBILT
PROFESSOR WHO COULDN'T BE HERE.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE DESIGN, I
HAVE TO AGREE WITH THOSE SPOKEN
IN OPPOSITION TO IT.
IT DOESN'T LOOK CONSISTENT TO
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE THESE WONDERFUL PRINCE
PORCHES.
WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THERE IS
NOT A PORCH.
IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD AS I SEE IT IN
THESE PICTURES.
I'M MOVED BY THAT.
IT APPEARS TO BE VERY TALL.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M BOTHERED
BY THE FACT THAT IT'S A DUPLEX,
IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OTHER
VICTORIAN HOMES IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY THE
BEAUTIFUL PORCHES.
THEY ADD A LOT TO THE
PERSONALITY OF THE VICTORIAN
NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.
I THINK SOMETIMES WE FACE THE
ISSUE DUE TO THE CRUDENESS OF
THE EXHIBITS AND THE QUESTION IN
OUR MIND AS TO HOW THE DETAILS
WILL BE DONE.
THIS IS A STREET FILLED WITH
BEAUTIFULLY CRAFTED VICTORIAN
HOMES GREAT CRAFTSMANSHIP TO THE
WINDOWS AND DOORS AND SO ON.
OFTEN THE DRAWINGS WE GET, IT'S
HARD TO SEE ALL OF THAT.
IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE,
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE
STAFF GETS INTO THE DETAILS AS
THEY ARE DEVELOPING OR AS IT'S
UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR WHEN YOU
GO TO THE SITE.
I SUSPECT WE DON'T HAVE THE
STAFF AND STAFF TIME TO BEYOND
THIS APPROVAL HAVE THE DETAILS
OR AUTHORITY BEYOND THIS
APPROVAL, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> MANY OF THE DETAILS ARE NOT
KNOWN AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL.
STAFF DOES WORK WITH THE
APPLICANT TO WORK THOSE OUT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS
MISSING IN THE DRAWING, BUT THE
APPLICANT HAS BEEN MORE THAN
WILLING TO WORK WITH US ON ALL
CHANGES.
I WOULD THINK HE WOULD CONTINUE
TO DO SO.
PAGE SEVEN, THE AREA ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE LOT ARE TWO HOMES
WITH A CROSS GABLE WHICH IS
EXACTLY WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE.
THEY HAVE WRAP AROUND PORCHES
INSTEAD OF TWO SEPARATE PORCHES,
BUT THE PROPOSAL HAS TWO SIX
FOOT PORCHES, SO WE THOUGHT THE
FORM DID MEET THE CONTEXT.
>> I THINK STAFF IS RIGHT IN
TERMS OF FORM.
I WAS RESPONDING TO THE QUESTION
ABOUT -- THERE IS OFTEN DETAILS
WE HAVE TO MAKE UP IN OUR OWN
MIMIND'S EYE.
I THINK THE APPLICANT IS MISSING
AN OPPORTUNITY BY PLAYING OFF
THE PORCHES AND IT COULD FEEL
LIKE A BIG SINGLE HOUSE WHICH
MAY BE MORE MARKETABLE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> COMMENTING ON THE AAPPLICABLE
GUIDELINES AS WELL AND AGAIN,
THIS IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE
OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID IN
TERMS OF HOW STAFF WOULD REVIEW.
IT SAYS ON YOUR PROPOSAL, STAFF
PROVIDE FINAL REVIEW OF ALL
MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT.
THERE IS A COMMENT WHEN IT SAYS
RELATIONSHIP IN USE OF MATERIALS
DETAILED MATERIAL COLOR OF NEW
BUILDING PUBLIC FACADE SHOULD BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE ADJACENT
BUILDINGS ARE OR SHALL NOT
CONTRAST CONSPICUOUSLY.
THIS IS IN CONTRAST TO ANYONE,
BUILDER, DEVELOPER -- I GUESS
THAT'S A DETAIL OF WHERE, AS
COMMISSIONER SAID, IT SEEMS TO
BE CONTRASTING A LITTLE BIT FROM
WHAT THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS
MIGHT BE?
>> ONE THING WE DON'T REVIEW IS
QUALITY.
THERE ARE CERTAINLY STANDARD
LANGUAGE IN ALL OF OUR PERMITS
THAT REQUEST THINGS LIKE CORNER
BOARDS, THAT KIND OF DETAIL.
WE REVIEW THE WINDOWS AND THE
DOORS AND WE REVIEW THE COLOR OF
THE ROOFING.
BEYOND THAT, AND MAYBE THIS IS
MORE WHAT YOU WERE ASKING, WE
DON'T REVIEW QUALITY.
WE DON'T DESIGN THE PROJECTS.
WE RESPOND TO THE PROJECTS
PRESENTED TO US.
IS THAT GETTING MORE TO THE
DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION?
>> I GUESS IN TERMS OF HOW THE
NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID THAT THE
HISTORIC VALUE OF THE HOMES
BESIDE IT ARE AFFECTED BY NEW
CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S COMMENTING ON HOW WE DO OUR
GUIDELINES AND HOW THINGS ARE
INTERPRETED.
>> I'M NOT BOTHERED SO MUCH BY
THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE
I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE
FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT IN THIS
BLOCK.
THERE ARE A LOT OF BIG HOUSES.
I THINK THAT ISN'T IS ISSUE AND
THE SINGLE TWO FAMILY ISSUE IS
NOT SOMETHING WE CAN GET INTO
BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DO TWO-FAMILY PROJECTS BY RIGHT
UNDER R-6 ZONING.
CONCERNS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED --
HUNTER THE LAST ONE TO TALK
ABOUT THE PORCHES.
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU SEE A LOT
IN LOCKELAND.
SOMEONE SAID EARLIER ESPECIALLY
ON THE STREET, AND AS HUNTER
SAID, IT MIGHT BE A LOST
OPPORTUNITY.
I ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO
FIND A WAY TO HAVE A BIGGER
FRONT PORCH, AND A SHARED FRONT
PORCH TO MAKE IT LESS
CONSPICUOUS THAT THIS IS A
TWO-FAMILY DWELLING.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DUPLEXES IN
HISTORIC OVERLAYS SIDE BY SIDE
THAT SHARE A FRONT PORCH.
SOMETIMES THEY LOOK LIKE FOUR
SQUARES UNLESS YOU ARE LOOKING
CLOSELY.
IN MY OPINION, THAT'S THE BEST
VERSION OF THE TWO-FAMILY HOME
WE ARE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER IN A
LOT OF THESE DISTRICTS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK WITH
STAFF TO FIND SOMETHING ALONG
THOSE LINES IF YOU CAN MAKE IT
WORK IN THE DESIGN.
SURE.
[ NO MICROPHONE ]
>> TWO SEPARATE HOMES -- THE
REASON I DIDN'T INITIALLY PUT
ALL OF THE PORCHES TOGETHER IS
BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEPARATE THE
HOMES AND MAKE EACH HOME MORE
INDIVIDUAL VERSUS LOOKING LIKE
ONE BIG BUILDING.
I WANTED TO GIVE THEM THEIR OWN
IDENTITY.
THAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRAWING, YOU
CAN TELL ONE OF THE FRONTS IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER.
I WAS TRYING TO GIVE THE IMAGE
OF TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS VERSUS
A BLACKBOARD -- DUPLEX.
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE AREA.
THERE IS THE GABLED OUT FORM TO
THE LEFT OF THE LOT.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU COULD
HAVE THE UNITS STAGGERED AND
DEVELOP SOMETHING LIKE THAT -- I
SHOULDN'T TRY TO DESIGN BECAUSE
I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT I
ENCOURAGE THE BIG FRONT PORCH
THAT DOES A LOT TO DEFINE THIS
STREET AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF WRAP
PORCHES.
YOU COULD USE THAT CONCEPT.
>> ONE MORE BIT OF FOOD FOR
THOUGHT FOR THE DEVELOPER.
I KNOW TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE
COMMON UNDER CERTAIN ZONING.
THEY LEAD US -- TWO FAMILY
DWELLING LEADS TO A CERTAIN
TYPOLOGY WITH TWO ENTRANCES ON
THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING, THAT,
TO ME, QUITE HONESTLY, MAKE THE
IT INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING
AROUND IT.
TO RECONFIGURE THE SPACE WITH
ONE ENTRANCE AND MAKE IT LOOK
LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD
MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
STREET AND NEIGHBORHOOD THAN
TRYING TO MAKE THEM SEPARATE.
YOU COULD EXPLORE THAT.
>> HISTORICICALLY THERE ARE
DUPLEXES.
SOME HAD A SINGLE DOOR.
MANY HAVE TWO DOORS AND TWO
SEPARATE PORCHES.
THE DESIGN BEFORE YOU IS SIMILAR
TO MULTIPLE DUPLEXES THE
COMMISSION HAS APPROVED IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS WITH TWO SEPARATE
PORCHES AND TWO SEPARATE DOORS.
THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
IS TWO FAMILY.
>> I THINK WE HAVE GIVEN STAFF
CONFLICTING IDEAS HERE.
I'M NOT SURE I KNOW HOW TO
PROCEED ON DISTRIBUTION OR IF WE
EVEN CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN'T DICTATE ARCHITECTURAL
STYLES OR DETAILS.
THAT'S NOT OUR PER VIEW.
>> THE MAIN THING, IS PORCH IS
THE MAIN THING.
WE HAVE HEARD CONFLICTING THINGS
ABOUT IT.
MAYBE THEY CAN LOOK AT MORE WITH
THE PORCH AND A BAND TO WRAP THE
BAND SO FAR.
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER
STUFF AS WELL.
>> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH WHAT
ROBIN SAID.
I FEEL STUFF LIKE THIS HAS BEEN
APPROVED.
WE CAN SAY WE'LL DISAPPROVE IT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT
DIFFERENT THIS TIME.
OUTSIDE OF THAT, IF WE CAN FIND
A RESULT THAT THE BUILDER CAN
LIVE WITH AND NEIGHBORHOOD CAN
LIVE WITH, WE RECOLLECTED TRY TO
ENCOURAGE THAT.
THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO
HAVE PRESENTED NEXT MONTH OR YOU
THINK THAT CAN BE REVOLVED WITH
STAFF AND NEIGHBORS?
>> I HAD IT IN MIND THAT IF THE
APPLICANT WAS SO WILLING, STAFF
COULD HANDLE THOSE CHANGES ON
THEIR OWN.
>> IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE
TO TAKE DIRECTION FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S UP TO HIM,
BUT IT'S YOUR DECISION, NOT THE
NEIGHBOR'S.
I WOULD HATE TO PIT NEIGHBOR
AGAINST NEIGHBOR AND SET THAT
UP.
STAFF THE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE
APPLICANT IF YOU WOULD REQUIRE
CHANGES.
>> A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE HAVEN'T
EVEN MET EACH OTHER WHEN THEY
GET HERE.
IF THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK, OFTEN TIMES, THEY CAN FIND
SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE.
>> I HAVE A -- THIS IS A
SPECIFIC COMMENT RELATING
CORRECTLY TO THE DOCUMENTS.
MAYBE DETAILS THAT MIGHT NOT BE
APPARENT FROM HOW THE
REPRESENTATIVE, IT'S NOT A
DISCOURAGEMENT FROM ACTIVATING
THE FACADES, BUT THINGS THAT
SEEM UNRESOLVED ON THE UNIT TO
THE LEFT SIDE.
ON THE UPSTAIRS PLAN, THERE IS A
BUMP OUT THAT DOESN'T
COMMUNICATE TO THE FIRST FLOOR,
WHICH IS UNUSUAL IN THE SHORT
PRECEDENCE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PROJECT
WOULD BE DRASTICALLY AFFECTED IF
THE FRONT PORCH REFLECTED THE
READING FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.
AT THE ROOF LINE, THE 12-INCH
BUMP OUT, NLTS YOU COME INTO THE
SOFT FSSOPHET, IT BE BELOW THE T
SOME POINT.
TO ME, YOU OFTEN SEE THAT
RESULTED OR DONE AS A BAY AND IT
ADDS VISUAL INTEREST.
DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO BE DONE
THAT WAY.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO
BE NOT CLEAR IN LOOKING AT THE
DOCUMENTS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW
EXACTLY IS THIS GOING TO BE
RESOLVED?
I WOULD, WITHOUT QUESTION, SAY
IT WOULD BE UNUSUAL FOR A BAY TO
REST TOP ON OF A PORCH RACK.
THAT'S A SPECIFIC COMMENT I
WOULD ADD TO THE ELEVATIONS AND
HOW THIS PROJECT PRESENTS ITSELF
TO THE STREET.
>> COULD I ADD ALSO TO STAFF'S
EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT THE
WINDOWS ON THE FRONT FACADE, IF
YOU LOOK AT THE SILL HEIGHTS.
AS PART OF YOUR CONDITIONS, AND
AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON
THE TABLE, SO IF THERE IS A
MOTION TO APPROVE, I WOULD HOPE
WE COULD INCLUDE A CONDITION
THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SILL
HEIGHTS TO MATCH THOSE ON THE
SIDE WHICH SEEM TO BE MORE
CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC
CHARACTER.
AGAIN, THE WINDOW SIZES AND
PROPORTIONS ON THE UPPER FLOOR
AS WELL.
PART OF THE ISSUE WITH THE PORCH
DESIGN -- AND AGAIN, PERHAPS
STAFF COULD WORK WITH THEM ON
THAT.
PARTLY, MAYBE DUE TO THE
CRUDENESS OF THE DRAWING OR
SIMPLE LINE DRAWING, AND LACK OF
DETAIL, BUT IS THE SCALE OF THE
PORCH FEELS PUNY COMPARED TO THE
CHARACTER OF THE CONTEXT OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE MASS OF THE
BUILDING, THE HEIGHT OF THE DOOR
APPEARS TO BE SHORTER THAN THE
WINDOWS, ATYPICAL TO HISTORIC.
THE PORCHES ALONG THE STREET
HAVE A GRANDEUR THAT WE COULD
ACHIEVE MORE SO WITH THIS PORCH.
WHETHER IT'S A COMBINED PORCH OR
WRAP AROUND, I THINK IT COULD BE
SEPARATE PORCHES.
THE HEIGHT OF IT MAY BE AN
ISSUE.
IT APPEARS TO BE SORT OF SMALL,
RELATIVE TO THE SCALE OF THE
REST OF THE HOUSE AND THE REST
OF THE CONTEXT.
>> I THINK THE APPLICANT MAY
HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY OR
PRESENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO REOPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GET
EVERYTHING OUT FIRST AND THEN
WE'LL MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE
COMMENTS OUT.
THEN WE'LL SEE.
MAYBE WE ARE DONE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL OF THE
COMMENTS ARE MADE.
ANYMORE FROM US?
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO
RESPOND BACK TO WHAT WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT?
>> YES, SIR.
IT WAS REALLY JUST A BRIEF
COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO THINGS
LIKE THE PORCH IS SORT OF AN
ISSUE.
WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND WITH A
WRAP AROUND PORCH, YOU GET TO
THE SIDE SET BACKS AND SO FORTH.
WITH CHANGING THE PORCH OR
WRAPPING AROUND, ALL OF A SUDDEN
IT BECOMES COVERED WHICH GOES TO
THE SIDE SET BACK.
YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE HOUSE TO
COMPLY WITH THAT.
AS FAR AS THE PORCH IS
CONCERNED, THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE
YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
LIKE THE COMMISSIONER SAID, THIS
PLAN WAS BASED OFF OF TOWNHOMES
ALREADY APPROVED.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS BASING IT OFF
OF.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, CAN I ASK THE APPLICANT
A QUESTION?
>> YES.
>> ONE MORE TIME.
SORRY TO MAKE YOU JUMP UP AND
DOWN.
>> THE VARIOUS COMMENTS TALKED
ABOUT SILL HEIGHTS, MATCHING
FRONT AND BACK AND THE BAND
GOING ALL THE WAY AROUND AND
CLARIFYING THE FOUNDATION WOULD
BE FOUR BLOCKS.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER
STUFF --
>> WINDOWS, I THINK.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING IN TERMS OF
COMMENTS THAT YOU FEEL THOSE ARE
THINGS YOU COULD WORK WITH STAFF
AND -- THE PORCH ISSUE TOO, WORK
WITH STAFF AND REVISE AND MAKE
MODIFICATIONS?
I'M TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN WORK
ON SOMETHING WHERE WE ADD A FEW
CONDITIONS AND THEN WORK WITH
STAFF AND EVERYTHING BE HAPPY
WITH AN APPROVAL.
>> I THINK THE FIVE OR SIX
THINGS RECOMMENDED BEFORE I CAME
HERE, I HAVE THAT HERE
CORRECTED.
I WAS GOING TO GIVE THEM TODAY
AND E-MAIL PAUL THOSE CHANGES
THAT WERE INCLUDED.
ALL OF THOSE FIVE THINGS OR SO
HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.
>> AND THE STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT
TODAY, DOES ANY OF THAT GIVE YOU
HEARTBURN.
THE PORCH A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE
I'M CONCERNED WITH A COVERED
PORCH, YOU GET INTO THE SIDE SET
BACKS WHICH SHRINKS THE HOUSE.
THEY ARE ALREADY 19 FEET WIDE.
THAT WOULD DRASTICALLY CHANGE --
>> WHAT I HAD IN MIND FOR THE
PORCH WOULD BE SITTING FLUSH
WITH THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE
AND BE PART OF THE FOOTPRINT OF
THE EXISTING HOUSE.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT WRAPPING.
>> I WAS THE ONE THAT SAID WRAP
AROUND.
YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT ELEVATION
FOR BOTH OF THEM, BUT THAT IT
SPANS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
I WANT TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE.
>> ONE OTHER THING WITH THE
PORCH AND THEN I'LL QUIT BEATING
THIS HORSE.
THE PORCH WILL ACCOMPLISH, IT'S
IMPORTANT ON THE STREET THAT YOU
EE BUILDING ON HOW YOUR
STRUCTURE AND PROJECT ADDRESSES
THE STREET ALONG WITH ALL OF THE
OTHER DWELLINGS THAT ALIGN WITH
IT.
A PORCH CAN GO ALONG WAY TO
HELPING YOU ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL
AND KEEPING UNITYTOTO A CERTAIN
DEGREE DOWN THE STREET AND MAKE
YOUR PROJECT MORE WELCOME.
>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT?
>> THANK YOU.
MAYBE WE CAN DO A MOTION?
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH THE ADDED CONDITIONS THAT
THE SILL HEIGHTS MATCH FRONT AND
BACK, THAT THE BAND GO AROUND
THE FRONT AT THE SAME LEVEL, THE
FOUNDATION BE NOT HIGHER THAN
32-INCHES, AND WOULD ENCOURAGE
SOMEONE TO ADD IF I HAVE MISSED
ANYTHING, BUT I AM TRYING TO GET
THE STUFF WE DISCUSSED, AND AS A
FINAL ONE, WORK WITH STAFF TO
DESIGN A FRONT PORCH THAT IS
SHARED BY BOTH UNITS AND MORE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PORCHES ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF GARTLAND, THE
SIDE IT SITS ON, ON THAT
PARTICULAR BLOCK.
>> IS THERE A SECOND
>> COCOND.
>> I HAVEAA COMMENT TO CLARI..
THE POINT AUTUT THEILIL HEIGHTS
MATCHING, I WANT TOVEVEFYFY,
AARON,HE I INTENOFOF YOUR M MOTN
IS THATHEHEFRFRONT SILL HEIGHTS
BE LOWER T TO MATCHHEHE S SE.E.
>>>> YE
>> II SS T TRYGG F FLOLOW WH
YOYOSASA FOFORE, SOYES.
>> WOULDD YOU MD R REATING THE
COCOITITN ABABT THEE PORCH?
>> THE CONDITION OUT THE PORCH
WAS THAT THE PORCH BECOME ONE
SINGLE PORCH SHARED BY BOTH
UNITS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
NATURE OF THE PORCHES ON
GARTLAND STREET ON THAT
PARTICULAR BLOCK, MEANING THAT
IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL PORCH,
WELCOMING PORCH, AND SHARED BY
BOTH.
>> I WOULD CAUTION US, AS ROBIN
MENTIONED, THE HISTORIC
PRECEDENCE IN MANY CASES OF DUAL
PORCHES, THERE ARE SINGLE
PORCHES AS WELL AND LARGE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
I WOULD CAUTION US TO ELIMINATE
THE DUAL PORCH.
IF THE DUAL PORCH REMAINS, I
THINK CAREFUL ATTENTION BY THE
STAFF TO THE SCALE AND SIZE AND
DETAILS AND HEIGHT OF THE DOORS,
WINDOWS AND PORCHES WOULD BE THE
CONDITION I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE
WITH IF LEFT AS TWO ENTRANCES.
I THINK THERE ARE PRECEDENCES
OUT THERE.
>> I AGREE.
MY MOTION IS NOT TO SET A
PRECEDENCE THAT THE DUAL PORCH
CAN'T BE DONE.
THIS IS AN EXCEPTION, NOT TRYING
TO SET A NEW JEN RALTY.
THERE ARE CLEAR CONSISTENCY WITH
THE PORCHES ON THIS BLOCK AND IT
WOULD CONTRAST GREATLY, EVEN
THOUGH YOU CAN FIND IT A FEW
BLOCKS AWAY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION.
DID WE GET A SECOND.
>> I DID.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN
AMENDMENT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDITIONALLY
PROPOSE THE CONDITION THAT THE
FRONT 12-INCH BUMP OUT THAT
APPEARS ON THE SECOND FLOOR BE
RESOLVED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OR
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE STAFF
THAT IT IS BOTH AT THE ROOF LINE
AND DOWN TO GRADE THAT IT'S
INTEGRATED IN THE FRONT
ELEVATION SUCH THAT THE DETAILS
ARE CLEAR IN THE DRAWING AND
THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH
HOW THAT IS TREATED WITHIN THE
DISTRICT AND THAT IT MEETS THE
GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF
PROJECTING BAY AND THAT, THAT IS
CONSISTENTLY HANDLED FROM ROOF
TO GROUND.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE DOUBLE ONE
TOO?
>> ADDITIONALLY, IN PROVIDING
DOCUMENTS INDICATIVE OF THE
BUILT OR WHAT IS INTENDED, THAT
CASINGS AROUND THE WINDOWS, AS
THIS IS A HEARTY PLAIN HOUSE
THAT THIS BE REFLECTED AND
TREATMENT OF DOUBLE WINDOWS
WHERE THEY ARE PAIRED TOGETHER
ARE CALLED OUT TO THE S
SPECIFICITY TO THE DETAILS OF
THE DISTRICT.
>> CAN I POINT OUT THAT WE ADDED
A LOT OF CONDITIONS ON THIS AND
THIS HOUSE WILL LOOK A LOT
DIFFERENT WHEN APPROVED BY
STAFF.
WE HAVE THE OPTION OF
DISAPPROVING TAKING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AS CONDITIONS
FROM THE COMMISSION.
IF WE APPROVE, I THINK THE
APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE THAT
THE STAFF MAY CHOOSE TO BRING IT
BACK TO US AS WELL IF IT'S
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT OR IF
THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
STAFF AN APPLICANT IN TERMS OF
HOW THE ISSUES ARE RESOLVED.
>> WE DO NEED TO VOTE ON THE
MOTION AND AMENDMENT.
>> I THINK WE VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT FIRST OR DO WE JUST --
>> THE PERSON MAKING THE
AMENDMENT CAN AGREE TO THE
CHANGES.
THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT.
>> YOU SECONDED?
DO YOU AGREE?
>> ALL IN FAVOR?
AYE.
ALL OPPOSED?
>> OKAY, THE LAST ONE IS 1702
EASTLAND AVENUE.
>> 1702 EASTLAND IS AN
APPLICATION FOR INFILL ON A
RECENTLY SUB DIVIDED LOT.
THE HOUSE WILL BE SET BACK
70 FEET FROM EASTLAND AVENUE.
HOMES TO EACH SIDE ARE 30 FEET
AND 111 FEET BACK.
THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF SET BACK
AND THIS PROPOSAL APPROXIMATELY
DISSECTS THE DISTANCE.
THE STRUCTURE IS A ONE AND A
HALF STORY CRAFTSMAN STYLE
BUNGALOW.
IT MEETS DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
HEIGHT AND SCALE.
MATERIALS ARE FROM ORIENTATION
AND SITE FEATURES.
THE DESIGNER IS CURRENTLY
SUBMITTING A REVISED SITE PLAN
TO RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY.
NEIGHBORING HOMES FOR CONTEXT
VIEW TO THE RIGHT AND LEFT,
EASTWARD FROM THE SITE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH
THE CONDITION THAT STAFF
APPROVAL MATERIALS OF WINDOWS
AND DOOR, BRICK AND ROOFING
COLOR, LOCATION OF AC UNIT,
WALKWAY ADDED TO THE FRONT
SIDEWALK, MULTIPLE WON'TS HAVE
FOUR TO SIX INCHES BETWEEN THEM
AND A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE
LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS TO PAUL?
>> I'M SLOW.
HOW DID YOU CALL COME UP WITH
THE PROPOSED LOCATION?
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU SPLIT THE
DIFFERENCE.
I DON'T HAVE A BETTER IDEA.
IT'S AN UNUSUAL SUBDIVISION.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY HOW.
>> OKAY.
>> THERE IS NO ONE IN PUBLIC
HEARING, WE'LL DISCUSS IT.
>> I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE
STAFF HAS LOOKED CLOSELY AT THIS
ONE, SO BARRING ANY OTHER
COMMENTS, I'LL RECOMMEND WE
APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> ALL IN FAVOR?
AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED?
>> MOTION CARRIES.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS?
I SAW A SLIDE POP UP.
>> ONE MORE THING, IF YOU DON'T
MIND, THE OLD HOUSE FAIR HAS
BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THIS YEAR,
MARCH 8TH, 9:00 TO 3:00.
IT WILL BE IN HILLSBORO WEST END
WHICH IS APPROPRIATE SINCE THEY
ARE APPARENTLY EXPANDING THEIR
DISTRICT.
IT'S AT THE MARTIN CENTER.
IT'S FREE AND THERE ARE
ACTIVITIES FOR CHILDREN,
LECTURES ON REPAIRING AND
WORKING ON OLDER HOMES.
I HOPE YOU CAN ALL JOIN US THIS
YEAR.
WE HAD 400 PEOPLE ATTEND LAST
YEAR.
>> WHAT TIME IS IT?
>> 9:00 TO 3:00.
>> THAT'S EVERYTHING WE HAVE.
>> OH, RIGHT THERE IN FRONT.