# data[].attributes.body
Approval question

# data[].attributes.body
I understand that Historic is trying to preserve certain neighborhoods in Nashville.  I certainly appreciate that, but I don't see the point in adding even more restricting guidelines.  It seems excessive.  Historic already has guidelines in place.  I'm concerned about them adding more and more rules.  What about property rights?  The overlay was originally sold to us that it was going to help property values.  Clearly, that is not what is happening.  I don't want any more rules implemented when we don't need them, and I am greatly concerned with the power that we homeowners are losing.

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciate Historic

# data[].attributes.body
Many times an uninformed public falls victim to a bait and switch scheme by a government agency who politely sells a bill of goods, only to substitute a completely different package in the end.  I believe this Design Guideline Consolidation project is one such scheme.
The fundamental appeal that a neighborhood that is considered historic and/or worthy of conservation has to homeowners is the understanding that the general character of neighborhood structures will remain mostly as they are today, with all new construction and renovations contributing to that general character.  That does not mean that new construction or renovations must stop, but that seems to be the goal of many of the current guidelines.  And now we are being told (sold) that consolidation will be a benefit, when I fear (bait and switch) that consolidation is merely just a power move.
Consolidation, in this case, seems to mean MORE guidelines and MORE RESTRICTIVE guidelines, not consolidation.
It has been my experience that current guidelines are not uniformly followed or enforced even in one Nashville neighborhood.  Are we to expect that expanding the reach to a one-size-fits-all approach will somehow streamline the process and benefit homeowners, developers, and Nashville as a whole?
Say NO now, before it is too late.
Buyer beware!

# data[].attributes.body
As a card-carrying preservationist, I never thought I would find myself objecting to any sort of preservation policies. I'm a planning and preservation consultant who drafts preservation ordinances, historic district design guidelines, and preservation plans on a regular basis. However, I believe that the proposed outbuilding standards are simply too restrictive. I am hoping to build a two-story gable-roofed DADU with a roughly 735 sq. ft. building footprint, and the draft standards preclude that from happening. While my opposition is certainly self-serving at one level, it actually raises a much broader and more significant issue. The vast majority of people experiencing a historic area do so from the street. Consequently, when I work with preservation commissions, I always emphasize that their design guidelines and review process should focus on what is visible from a street. When guidelines and the review process become too restrictive for the rear of properties that are not visible from a street, that is when public push-back begins to occur. Such opposition can, in turn, put an entire preservation program in jeopardy. In fact, one of the strongest selling points that I pushed when persuading my neighbors to support conservation zoning was the relative freedom they would have in treating the rear portions of their properties.

# data[].attributes.body
I apologize for just getting to my critique of this guide so late in the game. On page 10 the eve height top points don't match. I think this guide misses the two major points in my opinion. 1.) The outbuilding should be hidden behind the primary historical structure by being shorter and more narrow. I don't think Eve height needs to be part of the guidance. 2.) The size of the outbuilding should be dictated by the percent the lot is filled to avoid maxing out the lot. I don't like the idea dictated by the manual that makes taller buildings have a smaller footprint. The manual should focus on scale and massing and form does not need to be considered.

# data[].attributes.body
Why are sliding glass doors being included in this section? "When an addition includes garage, roll up, or sliding glass doors, the door(s) should be located on the rear. (See outbuildings for guidance on attached garages.) Garage, roll up, or sliding glass doors on the side of an addition may be appropriate if the wall that includes the door is stepped back from the primary side wall of the historic building by at least 4 feet" So a sliding patio door is no longer appropriate if it's visible from the street? The garage doors makes a little more sense, but even then if a client wants to use a garage door at a living room is that really such a problem? This seems like a restriction on more contemporary designs again. Having a garage on an addition is already covered in a section just above this, so it seems redundant to place restrictions on the use of door types as well.

# data[].attributes.body
There are no longer sections in the guidelines for multi-unit development. Having just spent a year working on an SP in Waverly-Belmont, even the small section that used to be in the guidelines was a helpful starting point. I know these projects aren't as frequent, but how will they be looked at by the MHZC now? Will each building on the site be reviewed under infill guidelines?

# data[].attributes.body
The new draft of the outbuilding plan book shows 7 options for two-story outbuildings. 6 of them have footprints under 700 square feet, and the only one with a 750 square foot footprint is a box with a flat roof. Two of them show one story massings next to two-story portions but do not define how those should be broken up. With the current guidelines, someone with a two story house could build an outbuilding with a 750 square foot footprint and a 700 square foot apartment, allowing them 1,450 square feet of usable space. This new plan book seems to only allow that option if you design a box with a flat roof. Any other plan book option seems to limit you to 1,000 square feet or so of usable space, essentially removing 450 square feet from a homeowners options. This change has been brought up during each community meeting but still hasn't really been addressed. Why are the guidelines becoming more restrictive here?

# data[].attributes.body
I have been at every meeting on this since this process started. I read the final draft yesterday for adoption by the commission. All I have to say is what happened to all the input from the public. Basically this final draft only allows the building of non-neighborhood consistent outbuildings but does nothing to make a DADU more usable. The one item I was pushing for is to have the DADU eave and roof peak heights to be allowed to be at least the height of the main structure. This was in the last draft I reviewed at the meeting by having a 13’ allowable eave height on 1 & 1.5 story DADU’s. Even though I was in favor of making the eave height max the same as the main structure from grade not 1st floor so the DADU cannot be higher than the main structure, I would accept the 13’ max on the last proposal. Now in this draft they have retreated to a 10’ max eave height from the 1st floor. This is too restrictive and makes the usable space in the 2nd floor of a DADU on a small lot almost unusable. I thought the reason that the city spent the money on Smith Gee was to come up with a plan that changes and clarifies rules so the outbuildings can be more usable. All I see in this last version is that they have appeased Architects by allowing more modern designs that do not fit the neighborhoods. I guess my time I spent attending the public input meetings was a waste of my time. The fix was in from the beginning. Historical was never going to really make these rules workable for building outbuildings that are more usable for a purpose and still match the historic look of the neighborhoods.

# data[].attributes.body
The new section on ridge raises has added an additional restriction to where they are allowed. They are no longer considered appropriate if you are also including an addition that adds more than 50% of the original footprint. Ridge raises are most often used on smaller houses without enough height in the attic. These houses also tend to have smaller footprints, so their additions are already limited. Why are we punishing homeowners with smaller houses?

# data[].attributes.headline
The consolidated guidelines should be called what they are....New More Restrictive Guidelines.  This process feels like a bait and switch.  I was sold the idea of consulting the guidelines, now after all the community meetings are done, we are seeing new guidelines.  Consolidation is defined as combining.  There should be no new language in the consolidated guidelines without starting the community input phase over again with the actual intent of informing owners of how this will impact them.  It seem consistent from all the comments on this page that factual communication on these changes has been very lacking.  

# data[].attributes.subject
The consolidated guidelines should be called what they are....New More Restrictive Guidelines.  This process feels like a bait and switch.  I was sold the idea of consulting the guidelines, now after all the community meetings are done, we are seeing new guidelines.  Consolidation is defined as combining.  There should be no new language in the consolidated guidelines without starting the community input phase over again with the actual intent of informing owners of how this will impact them.  It seem consistent from all the comments on this page that factual communication on these changes has been very lacking.  

# data[].attributes.headline
Outbuildings no longer a Conservation Zoning issue?

# data[].attributes.subject
Outbuildings no longer a Conservation Zoning issue?

# data[].attributes.body
Of course outbuildings / DADUs have been reviewed for years under existing Conservation Zoning guidelines. But perhaps they should not be, and more appropriately should be a part of base zoning regulation.

The new outbuilding regulations allow various "styles" of outbuilding (with size based only on lot size) to be constructed behind any existing house. And the Historic Commission staff have said in public meetings that since outbuildings of this size do not have a historic precedent in our neighborhoods, they are not reviewing them as a part of the historic context as they would review an addition to a house.

So why have the Historic Commission review them at all? Outbuilding regulations could be written into the Metro Zoning Ordinance (as some outbuilding rules already are) and the zoning department could handle them as part of the normal permitting process.

As the new guidelines for outbuildings stand, they do not have anything to do with preserving historic structures. It does not appear that they are based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, as by law all Conservation Zoning guidelines in the state are required to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Having attended the community meeting for outbuilding on August 19th - It seemed like there was confusion as to whether the outbuilding plans book should be used as a tool for understanding the volumes and footprints of outbuilding allowed for each site, or used as a prototype book of preapproved, full-fledged outbuilding designs. I agree that a tool for preliminary understanding of volumes and footprints for outbuildings for a given lot size would be useful for property owners looking to understand what size outbuilding they may be able to put on their lot, however, I strongly disagree with the notion of using this plans book as a series of preapproved designs. I agree with Nine12 Architects that this tool should be simplified to a basic illustration of massing forms that could be within a staff level approval process. Simplifying this “plans book” to a series of massing diagrams instead of developed plans and elevations could also help alleviate concerns about use of the building or limits of dwelling space within the building, neither of which are in MHZC’s purview to review or suggest. These massing diagrams should follow a clearly defined set of design guidelines for outbuildings, so that there is no undue burden put on homeowners desiring a custom solution that differs from one of these prototype illustrations.

# data[].attributes.body
I am concerned about the  loosening of requirements.  I believe this idea of allowing any style, and siding takes away from the historic look of the neighborhoods.  Why bother to have Historic conservation at all? I understand property rights, but our infrastructure cannot take all these outbuildings housing people.  We are  having sewer issues because of the age of the system and increased usage.  We all know these buildings for the most part are going to be used as STR and to have them right on top of neighbors in close quarters is going to be a problem.  In addition, how are all these buildings going to impact runoff water, once the grass is covered it no longer absorbs water will this cause flooding in the event of heavy rains? This may impact the neighbor's property as well, we will have neighbors suing each other for compensation of the cost of flooding.   I am  concerned about where are the cars going to be parked, connected to these second homes on lots originally planned for 1 home.    I think using Seattle and Vancouver as your "mentors" is not a good thing.  We are quickly losing the uniqueness of Nashville this adds to escalate the process.

# data[].attributes.body
On the website inside the document labeled" Part II Summary of changes for Historic Districts" it states;
Edgehill  Clarify that two-stories is allowed for infill, see page 51  Clarify that DADUs may be sold separately, see page 52 .
I couldn't find either of these changes in part II and I object to DADU's being sold separately for several reasons. 1.) this goes against what a DADU was designed to do. This is more like a HPR if you can sell it. 2.) This is not a question for the Historical Commission.

# data[].attributes.headline
REQUEST:  Clear tables on what can be done and under what circumstances.

# data[].attributes.subject
REQUEST:  Clear tables on what can be done and under what circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
Would hope that as an outcome of this process some tables are created which make it clear for all parties involved - homeowner, codes, permits, historic.... what should be done and in what situation.  As is now, there are these long documents that are too interpretable... and way too arbitrary.   Would like this brought up at the meeting as I cannot attend.  I would bet that 100% of people who care about this topic would agree, and based on the comments of others and architects... this is a problem.   See Nine12 Architects comments on this Padlet.   (also resolve some inconsistencies between departments .. as noted here about the 700 sq.ft. rule... )

# data[].attributes.body
When will written guidelines for out buildings be available for review?

# data[].attributes.body
Is it true that the proposed changes will exclude considering the main residence when determining size and height of DADU?

# data[].attributes.body
It appears that there are several new restrictions in the proposed guidelines regarding construction of attached garages. As far as I know this has not been discussed specifically in the community meetings. The new restrictions are as follows:

- p. 20 - Prohibits attached garages on infill construction in almost all cases.

- p. 25 - Prohibits garages on additions in most cases except where access is via a rear basement.

Existing guidelines in many districts had a more lenient definition of when a garage could be attached to a historic structure or to a new one.

Although I'm not in favor of front-facing garages in conservation zoning districts, I wonder if these new restrictions are necessary and why they were not brought up in any of the community meetings. It seems like a fairly big change to what is allowed.

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks for posting the initial draft online. I noticed that the allowable footprints for lots above and below 10,000 s.f. was corrected, which is good, but there is a comment in that section that seems odd. It states that "2-story outbuidlings may have a maximum of up to 750 sq ft footprint, with no more than 1000 total square feet between the 2 stories." This essentially limits you to a maximum 500 s.f. apartment and 500 s.f. footprint if you want a garage in your outbuilding. If you want the 750 s.f. footprint then you can only get 250 s.f. of usable space above it. This line just doesn't seem to make any sense. The DADU ordinance already places a 700 s.f. limit on the apartment. By removing DADU considerations from the outbuilding guidelines, you're having to create a new rule to try to limit the apartment, and it goes against the existing zoning ordinance already in place to control it. This is also putting a more restrictive rule in place than what we currently have for two-story outbuildings, which it seems like we are trying to avoid.

# data[].attributes.headline
Community Meeting and Outbuilding First Draft Thoughts

# data[].attributes.subject
Community Meeting and Outbuilding First Draft Thoughts

# data[].attributes.body
As an architect in Nashville who works on outbuildings on a monthly basis I'm very excited about the variety of forms shown in the first draft. The ability to have taller eaves and more contemporary forms is something that is necessary with how outbuildings are being used in the 21st century. However, after seeing the first draft, I am concerned about how those forms will be translated into written guidelines. The desire for custom outbuildings will still be there for homeowners. How are these new forms going to be defined? If a custom outbuilding does not follow those forms exactly, will it have to go before the Commission? It seems like this will complicate the process if you want a custom design.

It also seems like the forms should be a simple diagram to show massing and footprint. Plans and openings should be left to the homeowner/designer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should setback for new construction accommodate original structures

# data[].attributes.subject
Should setback for new construction accommodate original structures

# data[].attributes.body
My understanding is that Metro Nashville has "bulk setback standards"--required setbacks are uniform in all neighborhoods. This creates an issue in neighborhoods like Cherokee Park, where some houses and garages were built BEFORE any setback requirements existed. Some houses are too close to the property line at a corner or on one side. Many original garages were constructed right on the property lines. With small lots, when a "non-conforming" house is demolished and replaced, a setback of 3 feet from the property line for a garage on the new property may be only 3 feet from an existing garage. Or the owner of a "conforming" house who wants to expand his house out the back may find that he can't, because his house is already too close to a neighbor's property line. One possible solution that would accommodate historic structures would be to establish a minimum distance between new and existing construction that would be applied in situations where structures are too close to the property line to make bulk setbacks workable. This may not fall into the purview of "Design Guidelines" or under the authority of the Historic Commission, but it's an issue that needs to be addressed to help preserve the character of old neighborhoods and reduce tensions between neighbors who move into historic neighborhoods where such irregulaties and encroachments exists.

# data[].attributes.body
My neighborhood, Cherokee Park, has small lots (between .15 of an acre and half an acre with the .4 to .5-acre lots being lot-and-a-halfs or 2 combined lots), no alleys, and no sidewalks. Many of the original houses have garages build in the early 1930s that are literally right on the property line or may even encroach on a neighboring lot. When "non-conforming" house is replaced,  often, much of the lot is filled wit
h house and garage/DADU. Is it possible for design guidelines to require a percentage of the lot remain yard so yards look more uniform and new construction doesn't overwhelm existing homes and garages?

# data[].attributes.headline
Having gone through the process to design/build a DADU  in the hillsboro village area ... from first engaging with the historic commission before any plans for a dadu were done.. to going through the whole process with metro, permitting, etc.  (with our contractor).... this process today is broken --- with different people interpreting the current rules / guidelines differently ... you can talk to 3 people and get three views of what the historic overlay means, what you can do in terms of layout/footprint/setback, etc.  Whatever happens with the current discussion, Metro, the historic commission and permitting need to be consistent in educating their people and consistent in the application of rules/guidelines.  Today this is not happening based on our experience.  We have seen tons of examples of things they dug their heels in for us, but clearly allowed others to do... and you can see this going through the neighborhood... We would ask for this to be part of this discussion as even with the rules today, there is such inconsistency in approvals, permits, application, as well as the historic  commission input that it is not fair and can be simplified.   People want to know how big a footprint they can build, can they put more than one story, what types of windows must they use, what siding, setback from property line, setback / distance from house, etc.  This should be a simple table based on your lot size, existing footprint of house, neighborhood type (with our without overlay, etc.).  Hope this is helpful. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Having gone through the process to design/build a DADU  in the hillsboro village area ... from first engaging with the historic commission before any plans for a dadu were done.. to going through the whole process with metro, permitting, etc.  (with our contractor).... this process today is broken --- with different people interpreting the current rules / guidelines differently ... you can talk to 3 people and get three views of what the historic overlay means, what you can do in terms of layout/footprint/setback, etc.  Whatever happens with the current discussion, Metro, the historic commission and permitting need to be consistent in educating their people and consistent in the application of rules/guidelines.  Today this is not happening based on our experience.  We have seen tons of examples of things they dug their heels in for us, but clearly allowed others to do... and you can see this going through the neighborhood... We would ask for this to be part of this discussion as even with the rules today, there is such inconsistency in approvals, permits, application, as well as the historic  commission input that it is not fair and can be simplified.   People want to know how big a footprint they can build, can they put more than one story, what types of windows must they use, what siding, setback from property line, setback / distance from house, etc.  This should be a simple table based on your lot size, existing footprint of house, neighborhood type (with our without overlay, etc.).  Hope this is helpful. 

# data[].attributes.body
Are there any design changes or clarifications for driveways? We have a front driveway that needs replacing. It's currently existing and is made of concrete, but if we replace it, will we need to do a two track with grass in between? I don't know how the guidelines affect replacement of existing driveways. (Park-Elkins overlay)

# data[].attributes.body
I think a big problem with historic overlays is who gets to define "character" exactly? We're saying generations past who valued certain aesthetics over what we now know are smarter engineering/design decisions get to dictate the foreseeable future. Why? Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but why not embrace change and define our own new character? In a hundred years from now will we still have rules requiring houses in the style of a certain time period? Shouldn't that time period be from a time of modern design and building techniques rather than pre-information era? It seems silly to me to tell a property owner what they can and can't do with their own property. Thoughts?

# data[].attributes.body
There should be an entity that would help preserve the social and historic character of the neighborhoods by buying groups of historic homes that might otherwise be tear-downs (or "luxury" residences) and rehabilitating them as affordable housing for local families. I worked for an architecture firm in Boston that specialized in this kind of work:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Info

In 2013, an extensive rehabilitation was needed for the HSEA buildings as they were approaching the 150-year mark. This involved bringing the 32 buildings up to modern standards while retaining their original historic character and integrity, as well as ensuring affordability for the 146 families that are long-term residents.

The occupied rehabilitation included new kitchens, bathrooms and finishes for all units and common areas, extensive masonry restoration; updated HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and life safety systems, new roofing, and the replacement of over 850 windows with new historic wood sashes. The scope also entailed handicap accessibility and code requirements. Working closely in tandem with residents and neighbors, we were able to successfully phase construction on all 32 buildings.

Similar Projects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2013, an extensive rehabilitation was needed for the HSEA buildings as they were approaching the 150-year mark. This involved bringing the 32 buildings up to modern standards while retaining their original historic character and integrity, as well as ensuring affordability for the 146 families that are long-term residents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Will any of this affect the Primrose Overlay? - Michael Karb Belmont-Hillsboro 

# data[].attributes.subject
Will any of this affect the Primrose Overlay? - Michael Karb Belmont-Hillsboro 

# data[].attributes.body
Will any of this work affect the Primrose overlay?

# data[].attributes.headline
With the other comments on DADU eaves this morning I thought I'd note here that the commission made a ruling yesterday (7/17/19) about this. A project at 712 Fatherland was submitted and the applicant asked for 15' eaves to match those on the existing house. The commission decided that allowing the higher eaves and lower sloped roof form to match the existing house was more appropriate than forcing lower eaves and a higher pitched roof. I think we should keep this in mind as we start writing these new outbuilding guidelines in the next month here.

# data[].attributes.subject
With the other comments on DADU eaves this morning I thought I'd note here that the commission made a ruling yesterday (7/17/19) about this. A project at 712 Fatherland was submitted and the applicant asked for 15' eaves to match those on the existing house. The commission decided that allowing the higher eaves and lower sloped roof form to match the existing house was more appropriate than forcing lower eaves and a higher pitched roof. I think we should keep this in mind as we start writing these new outbuilding guidelines in the next month here.

# data[].attributes.body
The rule concerning eave heights on DADU's should be changed. Currently the max eave height is limited by the number of stories. The rule should be not higher than the existing eave height on the main structure up to a max of 17" or whatever. Plus the eave height should be considered absolute elevation not from the 1st floor for example. I believe the intent is to not have a DADU higher than the main structure. So on level it he eave height is not higher than the main structure no matter the ground elevation it should be OK.

# data[].attributes.body
Mr Zeigler, I would like to propose what I feel is a solid option to the proposed overlay.. If there is new construction or remodel or any work that would require a permit the following would help the existing owners and at the same time enhance the flow and look of the neighborhood..    If the proposed new construction or remodel etc has an historic home on either side of it.. then the new construction must reflect the design of the adjacent historic home... If the proposed new construction has on both sides newer designed buildings then the house in the middle has the ability to get a variance to  choose  styles to fit in with the surrounding dwellings... This will ensure that any new construction will be cohesive to the immediate surroundings... so you don't have new construction sandwiching an old style victorian, which is now the case.. it looks terrible and really out of place ...  it will also stop new construction from creeping down the street lot by lot. simply put .. if the house on either side is historic style then the new construction has to match that general style...If your sandwiched  between two new homes you can choose your style to look cohesive ... eventually this will lead to a contiguous very good looking neighborhood... thank you...

# data[].attributes.headline
This concerns DADU's. I recently was in a Historic Commission meeting where my property was being reviewed. On the eave height there is not any rule for 1.5 story. So the eave height of existing structure or max of 10' applied as you interpret a 1.5 story as a 1 story. So my issue is why have the 10' rule. Why not just set the DADU eave cannot be higher that the main structure eave up to "X" max height no matter how many stories are in the main structure. The other issue is the staff measure the main structure eave height from the 1st floor elevation. That does not make sense. there is not a place where my 1st floor is less than 3' off the ground.  The eave height rule should be not higher than the main structure eave height on level. So if the DADU floor is 5 feet below the main structure and the mains structure has an eave height of 10' it should be allowed to have a 15' eave height from floor level. The intent should be to not be higher than the main structure. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This concerns DADU's. I recently was in a Historic Commission meeting where my property was being reviewed. On the eave height there is not any rule for 1.5 story. So the eave height of existing structure or max of 10' applied as you interpret a 1.5 story as a 1 story. So my issue is why have the 10' rule. Why not just set the DADU eave cannot be higher that the main structure eave up to "X" max height no matter how many stories are in the main structure. The other issue is the staff measure the main structure eave height from the 1st floor elevation. That does not make sense. there is not a place where my 1st floor is less than 3' off the ground.  The eave height rule should be not higher than the main structure eave height on level. So if the DADU floor is 5 feet below the main structure and the mains structure has an eave height of 10' it should be allowed to have a 15' eave height from floor level. The intent should be to not be higher than the main structure. 

# data[].attributes.body
I hope there will be more sidewalks. Odd enough when I moved here it was a shock that more of these bungalow homes did not have sidewalks.  In other cities these types of homes do. It creates community.  We live in a city not the county. Hoping for more support for sidewalks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Summary of changes in the consolidated guidelines: 

# data[].attributes.subject
Summary of changes in the consolidated guidelines: 

# data[].attributes.body
Please post the summary and include in the summary references in the consolidated draft.

# data[].attributes.body
I was not able to attend the community meeting regarding outbuildings. Can you please share a summary of information shared at that meeting? Thanks.

# data[].attributes.headline
I'm also still uncertain on the guidelines for roof decks for both infill and new construction. For infill, it states "Roof decks are not appropriate on the front or side of infill but may be appropriate on the rear if the deck is surrounded on all sides by an appropriately pitched roof." I watched two roof decks be approved on infill construction at the commission meeting yesterday and neither had a pitched roof around it. One was on a side elevation and one was on the front. The addition guideline states "Rooftop decks are not appropriate on side additions but may be appropriate on rear additions if the deck is surrounded on all sides by an appropriately pitched roof." But again, in the past I have seen flat roof decks approved on additions. Our project at 1707 Blair just won a historic preservation award and the entire addition is a flat roof deck with no pitched roof. I don't think these lines should be in the guidelines at all, as a roof deck can be designed appropriately in a number of different ways. This seems like another line discouraging contemporary design styles and trying to force historic forms where contemporary styles can be just as appropriate.

# data[].attributes.subject
I'm also still uncertain on the guidelines for roof decks for both infill and new construction. For infill, it states "Roof decks are not appropriate on the front or side of infill but may be appropriate on the rear if the deck is surrounded on all sides by an appropriately pitched roof." I watched two roof decks be approved on infill construction at the commission meeting yesterday and neither had a pitched roof around it. One was on a side elevation and one was on the front. The addition guideline states "Rooftop decks are not appropriate on side additions but may be appropriate on rear additions if the deck is surrounded on all sides by an appropriately pitched roof." But again, in the past I have seen flat roof decks approved on additions. Our project at 1707 Blair just won a historic preservation award and the entire addition is a flat roof deck with no pitched roof. I don't think these lines should be in the guidelines at all, as a roof deck can be designed appropriately in a number of different ways. This seems like another line discouraging contemporary design styles and trying to force historic forms where contemporary styles can be just as appropriate.

# data[].attributes.body
Conservation of our neighborhoods should not restrict architectural design. Do we really want to create an architectural review board whose taste will determine what can be built? The best way to preserve the green space, the character and historic "feel" is to not allow subdivision of properties - creating two lots from one, for example - and to not allow encroachment on setback boundaries - and to restrict heights (volume restrictions based on lot size, while difficult to measure, would limit "massing") - so as to remain in conformity with current density. Being more flexible with outbuildings concerns me because there is a risk that flexibility with regard to outbuildings will not only increase density but also expand lot coverage, reduce green space and encroach on neighbors' privacy - thereby changing the fundamental character of our neighborhoods. I don't think we want to let that horse out of the barn.

# data[].attributes.headline
Take aways from "what other cities are doing"

# data[].attributes.subject
Take aways from "what other cities are doing"

# data[].attributes.body
1. Can have one detached and one attached accessory dwelling unit per principal dwelling.
2. 1 additional parking space is required IF more than 0.25 miles from a transit corridor;
no parking required IF within 0.25 miles of transit
3. Many cities are using incentive programs to encourage the construction and rental of D/ADUs at below-market rate.

# data[].attributes.body
What are your thoughts on regulating roof color for new construction? Additions generally just match existing but what about infill? Should the color be regulated or not?

# data[].attributes.body
It seems that in the revision of the guidelines we need a clearer definition of what constitutes "demolition." Is demolition total removal of a building or is demolition deconstructing a contributing property all the way down to the studs leaving only the footprint of the foundation and a semblance of the roof? After such an elimination of original material is the dwelling still "contributing" in any real sense if 90% of the historic fabric has been removed?

Is this house in the Hillsboro-West End CZ Overlay a rehabilitation, deconstruction or demolition?

# data[].attributes.body
Just want to say kudos to the commission and neighborhood representatives for taking this important job on.  As an architect who lives in and does work in these neighborhoods, I welcome the consolidation and additional clarification.  Many of my clients feel overwhelmed and concerned when considering taking on a building project to their historic home.  I enjoy walking them through the process but concise information that I can relate to them easily is key.  I also welcome any amount of flexibility that can be had with respect to outbuildings.  Historically these were a big help to people during tough times, providing both additional income and a variety of living situations.  If it is not abused I think these quirky structures are a real asset to the neighborhood.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John TeSelle - Hillsboro-West End (jt28)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things John TeSelle - Hillsboro-West End has made

# data[].attributes.headline
Structures caught in between zoning guidelines

# data[].attributes.subject
Structures caught in between zoning guidelines

# data[].attributes.body
We have a detached, two-story garage that was built before the historic overlay in Eastwood Neighbors. (I voted in favor of it.) We recently wanted to finish out the second story to use personally and for an owner-occupied STR. We hired an designer and found a builder. When the builder went to get the permit because our existing roofline doesn't comply with the historic overlay requirements. So currently we would need to demolish the second floor of the structure and rebuild to codes. This is such a waste of time and money. Today, in order to comply, we can even EXPAND the footprint of the second floor making it larger, which also doesn't make sense.  Short version of this story: If we finished out our garage with a full one-bedroom apartment today it would look NO DIFFERENT than it does currently. Does that make any sense? (Note: We have off street parking next to the garage too.)
-Ron Snitker

# data[].attributes.body
Most or all of the Conservation Zoning guidelines in the city have a statement such as this: "New buildings should not imitate past architectural styles; they should reflect the era of their own construction." I am not proposing that designs that do imitate past styles should be rejected. Just curious if that has ever happened -- has the staff or the Historic Commission asked a designer or owner of a house to revise so that a proposed addition or new construction does not look so historically accurate?

# data[].attributes.body
Several neighborhood reps expressed interest in a percentage of lot coverage that is more restrictive than current base zoning as a way to address storm water, the loss of old growth trees and incompatible outbuildings and additions. What do you think?

# data[].attributes.headline
Neighborhoods that weren't originally designed for sidewalks

# data[].attributes.subject
Neighborhoods that weren't originally designed for sidewalks

# data[].attributes.body
I recently submitted a request for traffic calming at the request of many neighbors. Several also mentioned having Metro install sidewalks. On one hand, that makes sense--Cherokee Park is between two greenways, and Aberdeen Road is the direct route for people from CP and Richland/West End to walk or cycle to the Richland Creek Greenway or over to the commercial area at the intersection of 46th and Murphy roads. However, CP was not originally designed for sidewalks. On some streets, front yards are already small, and the 9 feet required to install a sidewalk would constitute a third or more of the front yard. In addition, many people have landscaped and installed parking areas in front of their houses to provide guest parking that doesn't block the street or create muddy tire tracks in your front yard. I want to encourage CP to explore alternatives to sidewalks given the fact that our neighborhood wasn't originally designed for them. (We don't have back alleys, either.) Any input or ideas, especially from others in similar neighborhoods built in the 19203 and 30s where lawns end at the roadway?

# data[].attributes.headline
DADU comments from Neighborhood - 4 responses Elmington all very similar!

# data[].attributes.subject
DADU comments from Neighborhood - 4 responses Elmington all very similar!

# data[].attributes.body
RESPONSE 3 OF 4 LEAVE AS IS FOCUSED ON EXTERIOR 4TH SEEMED TO SAY SAME THING BUT ASKED..... I'm not clear what would be entailed with interior inspections.  I thought that as things stand now, the historical overlay requirements dealt only with exteriors.

GENERATED FROM Notes from April Session Guideline Committee / Elmington Overlay

# data[].attributes.body
DADU FEEDBACK:

1)      Currently when a DADU is in place the Principal and Accessory structures must be owned by a single entity and the entity must occupy one of the structures as a principal residence. This said the primary owner is resident on the property in this situation. Should the DADU continue with this ruling or should ownership be allowed to be off-site?

4 OF 4 AGREED THAT MUST BE OWNED BY SINGLE ENTITY AND A PRINICPAL RESIDENT ON SITE

2)      As mentioned, the Principal and Accessory structures are on one lot and of a single ownership. Should the DADU continue with this ruling or should the lot be allowed to be divided into two ownership positions?

4 OF 4 AGREED ONE LOT AND SINGLE OWNERSHIP

3)      There was some discussion about expanding final inspection requirements of the Historic Commission to insure guidelines were being specifically followed. There were several that found the idea unfounded as they were not interested in having interior inspections made. Some felt like the Metro departments needed better cross communication to allow for the Building Inspectors to help enforce Guidelines. And some supported the idea. If you want to comment on this I am happy to report that back in the next meeting.

3 OF 4 AGREED EXTERIOR FOCUS ONLY AND 4 TH STATED……On #3, I'm not clear what would be entailed with interior inspections.  I thought that as things stand now, the historical overlay requirements dealt only with exteriors.

# data[].attributes.body
Currently the design guidelines require that new lap siding not exceed a reveal of 5". Do you think this is an important factor in making sure that new construction "fits into" the neighborhood?