Metro Council votes to approve Brady Banks' rezoning request despite receiving a neighborhood petition with 400 signatures against it

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about this "Plum Orchard" rezoning ordinance in Brady Banks' Brentwood district because I have not been following it like some in the community have, but here is what I learned about from last night's council meeting:

• There were many more people present in the council gallery opposing his ordinance last night than favoring it. One of them even presented a petition against it with 407 signatures.
• The primary person speaking in favor of it was Tom White, land use lawyer and registered lobbyist for the Home Builders Association. The last time I saw Mr. White, he was defending the controversial proposal to introduce rural Whites Creek to more suburban sprawl. The rezoning request CM Banks is proposing would subdivide Brentwood farmland into 78 suburban plots.
• Former CM and current engineer-to-developers Roy Dale also spoke in favor of the project as he is on this development team. Does Mr. Dale ever work on a project that does not raise questions?
• Reportedly, there are opposition signs against the project "all over" the area around the intersection of Church Street East and Cloverland Drive.
• Opponents said during last night's hearing that they do not oppose development, but they oppose the rezoning, which they say would generate more auto traffic. They support the owners' right to develop the property within the zoning, which would mean tracks larger than the current plan, but still smaller than those in surrounding neighborhoods.
• One opponent said that when he asked CM Banks during a phone call which side he was on, the CM replied that the opponent did not understand that there were "some highly politically influential [unnamed] people involved." The same opponent pointed out that Roy Dale claimed that the development is within walking distance of Brentwood, but that Metro had not provided sidewalks or any other pedestrian infrastructure along the route to Brentwood.
• After the public hearing was over, council engaged in practically no debate in spite of the petition. To his credit, CM Bruce Stanley rose in opposition and reiterated that Metro's infrastructure is "substandard" to suit the plans that developers keep concocting. He also said that a "progressive" development is one that "shows benefit for the entire community, not simply the developer."
• Mayoral candidate and at-Large CM Megan Barry, who is running on the promise "not to lose sight" of neighborhoods in favor of economic development, said nothing about Plum Orchard rezoning and ultimately voted to approve Brady Banks' ordinance. As at-Large, she is technically this area's representative, too, but she did not lift a finger in advocacy for the neighborhood last night.

In the end the council approved CM Banks' rezoning proposal. The moral of this story: 1 lobbyist carries more weight with this Metro Council than does the petition of hundreds of neighbors in the impact zone of developments.

Metro Council candidate queries Germantown coffee shop owner on Madison plans

A pre-Christmas Twitter exchange between district 8 candidate Nancy VanReece and a Germantown restaurant/coffee shop owner on the latter's plans for a second shop in Madison (third, if you count plans for a Berry Hill extension) captured below. Offered without my comment, other than to say that I have positively reviewed The Red Bicycle in the past. But please feel free to comment yourselves, if so led:

Is this Salemtown development designed for people or for cars?

Over the past year--whether concerning a new bus rapid transit line or an $18 million pedestrian bridge--the Mayor's Office has drummed into our heads that the strapping millennial generation is different than others in that they want more walkable neighborhoods and more mass transit. In short, they don't care for cars.

What's good for public dollars ought to be good for private dollars, too, so why is Dale & Associates builders planning a high-density build in Salemtown with what looks like parking for at least 40 cars? New builds are marketed to millennials who don't subscribe to car culture (unlike baby boomers), so why do these the developers of "The Row at 6th and Garfield" plan to pave/build over what looks like about 80% of the land across 5 properties?

Accommodations for 40 cars?!!

It seems brash enough to demolish 8 units across those 5 plots and build 20 in a neighborhood zoned mostly for medium density. However, I can grasp the logic that the urban core is going to become more, not less dense over time. What I fail to appreciate is taking out what are currently modest rentals that accommodate working-class folk in are increasingly being pushed out of Salemtown. What I fail to fathom is why one more project is being built for upwardly mobile millennials, with no mention of affordable options to hang on to diversity. What I fail to respect is the idea that the space will be more devoted to servicing cars than people; in an age where we are told that millennials are giving up their cars.

Current configuration: 8 units, maybe a dozen parking spaces.

Some in the new urbanist klatch refer to this corner as the "last remaining corner at 6th and Garfield," even as it continues to be occupied families with children. Part of the problem with the gentrifying mindset it that it renders people of modest income invisible. The more profound attribution to me is that if The Row at 6th and Garfield is built as currently planned, then the last patch of considerable green space at this intersection will be paved over. It is not uncommon to see children playing on the grassy areas whenever I pass this intersection.

The builders of each of the other three developments (one is Dale & Associates) at the intersection took vacant lots with nothing but green space and built town homes with completely paved car ways in the back. They left thin slivers of green space ringing each of the developments. So, The Row at 6th and Garfield would complete the trend of orienting intersection completely to car traffic regardless of environmental and stormwater run-off impact.

While the question of 20 units may not be as much of an issue in the urban core, the question of parking for 40 cars in the core makes 20 units too much for this intersection. The owners of these properties are allowed to build what they wish within the current medium density parameters, but they are requesting rezoning for 40 cars. They have to have community support to be permitted to build for 40 cars.

In my opinion, it is unwise for Salemtown to support to the idea of parking for 40 cars in one development. We need to ask the developers to scale down their build more practically for the people they are marketing to. Why not double the number of units from 8 to 16 and reduce the number of car provisions to 32 (or less since millennials don't prefer cars)? And they should be required to include affordable housing components in the project.

If the men of Dale are going to ask for our support in their bid to maximize land owners' investments, then they should be willing to give something back to our community.


UPDATE: I took a photo of the MTA bus stop closest to the properties where The Row at 6th and Garfield would be built. The blue sign marks the stop. The red brick duplexes in the center background of the photo are the properties in question. We are talking about a few dozen feet to walk to catch a bus that runs straight down 5th Av N to downtown's central station in around 5-10 minutes (yes, I have picked up a bus there before), where other buses can take riders anywhere in Nashville.

Again, if mass transit is a comer with potential buyers, and they do not have to walk even a block to access mass transit, why should developers include 40 parking spaces at The Row at 6th and Garfield?

Is the Salemtown neighborhood association prepared for these January rezoning requests?

Salemtown Neighbors does not traditionally hold December business meetings deferring instead to hosting a holiday social. This tradition will hold in 2014, but given news of some requests for rezoning due for public hearing in January, the association officers may want to consider discussing them since they will happen before the January 2015 business meeting:

A seven-home courtyard style project is slated for 1614 and 1616 Fourth Ave. N. Dale & Associates will go before the Metro Planning Commission on Thursday, Dec. 11, to request the SP.

At 1618 Fourth Ave. N., and on the southeast corner of the intersection of Garfield Street and Fourth, an eight-unit development with six attached townhomes to face Garfield and a two-family dwelling to address Fourth is planned. D&A will go before the commission on Thursday, Jan. 8.

And at the northeast corner of Sixth Avenue North and Garfield, a 20-unit attached-townhomes development is being targeted. Seven of the units would face Sixth, eight would address Garfield and five would run along an alley. The project would replace the four existing duplexes seen here in an image courtesy of Google Maps. D&A also will address the commission about this project on Jan. 8.

The project that is before the Planning Commission tomorrow (1614 and 1616 4th Av N) was already vetted and discussed by the association at their October business meeting. The association made no requests for changes, even though an "SP" ("Specific Plan") allows them to leverage changes to the plan in exchange for community support of the plan. However, those developers promised in October to keep the association in the communication loop as plans unfolded. I have not heard anything from SNNA officers on new plan developments since that meeting. Maybe it is time for an update? I would hate to be blind-sided by tomorrow's commission meeting.

The association has not heard from the developers for the larger 8-unit development at Garfield and 4th Av N or what sounds like a massive one at Garfield and 6th Av N. Most of Salemtown is zoned "R6" for medium density single family detached homes or duplexes, so I assume that the developers are seeking rezoning. At the very least, we should be discussing the impact of replacing 8 units with 20 units at 6th Av N and Garfield. The street parking situation on Garfield alone is getting silly with the existing onslaught of new builds.

Since rezoning cases are about the only times the neighborhood can have direct influence or control over what gets built and the plans' consistency with Salemtown's character, I hope the association officers are keeping tabs on this. I have heard nothing from them as an SNNA member. Hopefully, they are considering making more of a social media effort beyond promoting cookies and dog grooming on the association's Facebook page.

In my opinion, Roy Dale's development company has a debatable track record of building in Salemtown and so we need to stay on our toes and vigilant about these proposals. Otherwise, in a few years we may regret letting this opportunity go by without exercising some control over the process. I hope the officers are keeping their eye on the ball despite the distractions of the holiday season. Developers are notorious for sneaking controversial proposals through the Planning Commission when neighbors are distracted by the holidays. We need to keep tabs on Dale & Associates for that reason alone.

Update on last night's important Salemtown meeting with 3 developers

Monday night's monthly Salemtown Neighbors business meeting was enlightening if for no other reason than to witness the contrast between responsible developers and detached developers.

I should start off by clarifying and correcting information in yesterday's post announcing the developers' appearance in our community: only two of the proposals seek to rezone for Specific Plans. The third, which did not have any information on yesterday is not seeking any rezoning, but building according to what the zoning currently allows. The zoning allows for medium density with either single or two-family dwellings (as in duplexes).

And I want to start with the non-SP first, precisely because the development team did not have to appear before our association to get feedback on what they have planned for the 1700 block of 4th Av, N., but they appeared anyway in order to keep us informed. Got it? They can build what they want within the parameters set by land development and planning guidelines, but they still chose to seek Salemtown support for their plan.

Their plan for duplexes looks attractive and the elevations they showed appear to fit within the character of the community in my opinion, but what stood out singularly to me was their acknowledgment more than once that the neighborhood has collectively been unhappy with what recently passes for new infill in Salemtown. One of their members, Grant Hammond, mentioned that he wanted to take his group's project in a different direction along the lines of how more responsible developers have treated the association before the recent building wave got started. He expressed openness to continuing to meet with SNNA officers, passing along details and meeting with the association when necessary.

It really was a breath of fresh air, especially because he was not required to commit to any of that.

And we have already seen how developers who do not strive to go beyond what they are merely required to do take advantage of Salemtown.

Speaking of which, Aerial Development also appeared at an SNNA business meeting years after their plan for 1706 4th Av. N. was first introduced (recently delayed due to height details that were inconsistent with Salemtown's conservation overlay). To her credit, Aerial owner Britnie Turner (who thanks to the fawning Tennessean seems to enjoy more of a connection with the Salemtown name than most of us long-time residents do) at least showed up and tried to defend her company. However, her presentation consisted of the same series of defenses that CM Erica Gilmore employed at the September SNNA meeting. She insisted that Aerial relies on Metro Planning to do the communicating with the neighborhood and that her team did everything that they were legally required to do.

Incidentally, Aerial is one of those developers that have been the object of criticism in Salemtown. I have heard from several neighbors who were unhappy about quick tear downs and the disjunction between Aerial's towering roof-top-hot-tub builds and community character. I have also heard from at least one Aerial buyer who is not at all satisfied with the way he has been treated by the developers. Like Mr. Hammond pointed out, there has been criticism of recent developments in Salemtown. My eyes were on Ms. Turner when he said that.

Mr. Hammond's act was a hard one to follow, given that he was not required to contact Salemtown Neighbors and discuss his plan. However, the contrast between his group and Aerial Development could not have been more stark. Ms. Turner could not muster effective damage control to save her life. She did her own company a disservice in continuing to fall back on the line that she did everything the regulations require. She promised in the future she would contact the association president, but the impression I got in chats with other folk after the meeting is that she has a lot to prove to Salemtown going forward if she wants to have a constructive relationship.

There is some confusion over the name of Aerial's project. Metro Planning calls it "4th Avenue Cottages." Aerial presented it last night as "Salemtown Square." That seems to answer the question I asked last July after Salemtown Square websites appeared: where and how would they be? After I blogged in July, the websites (including Facebook and Instagram pages) were taken down. Then the main website came back up in a different form. Then it disappeared again. All links to a free-standing online presence appear to be broken at this point. Aerial's main page says nothing, as I write this, about Salemtown Square. Communication does not seem to be the company's oyster.

There was an offbeat, nearly cringe-worthy moment last night where Ms. Turner spoke pejoratively of another neighborhood Aerial had worked with. An SNNA member asked why, given the loads of money developers take away from sales, they cannot give back to services (like schools) that support the neighborhoods in which they build? Ms. Turner responded that Aerial had made a big donation to a fund at the request of another neighborhood, but then the neighborhood "whined" that it was not the fund they preferred. What an undiplomatic, unnecessary characterization of what another neighborhood did. What is to stop us now from assuming that she goes to other neighborhood meetings and talks about how much we "whine" about expecting developers to communicate with us above and beyond what Metro Planning requires?

Between last night's contrast of responsible developer and uncommunicative developer was the third development team who are proposing a Specific Plan of 7 detached single family homes across properties at 1614 and 1616 4th Av N. While they did not make the same dramatic move that Mr. Hammond's development team did, they still showed better than Aerial since they took the initiative before acquiring these properties to meet with the neighborhood association.

Their SP requires incorporation of community feedback, and I hope that we can make productive recommendations. The properties are currently zoned for commercial use and I stand with those at this point who argue that residential rezoning makes more sense than commercial or mixed-use given that we do not control what kind of businesses would go in if it stayed commercial (the current resident has lived in a trailer on one of the properties for 30 years). The properties sit right behind the Fehr School building, and frankly I would not want to see some types of businesses go in right behind an educational facility, near a residential intersection. Salemtown already has a zoned commercial intersection at Buchanan and 5th Av, N, and that seems quite enough to me, especially as we already rely on Germantown's walkable businesses. I do not see any commercial enterprises clamoring to compete with this proposal for these properties, so what is the point in waiting for commerce that may never materialize? As long as residential plans meet with our expectations, we should move forward.

The 1614/16 team agreed to continue to communicate with our association, especially as plans continue to develop.

Overall, I took last night's meeting with developers as a positive sign that builders are going to be more responsible and communicative going forward. I hope that this trend continues.

An open letter to council member Erica Gilmore

Dear Erica Gilmore,

Last night's Salemtown association meeting certainly could have gone better. Not that we do not need to our council member to show up to our meetings. I certainly wish you had attended more during your term on the council.

But last night we got more of the same that we have seen from you in recent years, CM Gilmore. All you seem interested in now is doing the absolute minimum that you are required to do instead of going a few extra steps for ordinary constituents who are not big finance cash cows. We were not asking you to go an extra mile like the Mayor is in getting you to sponsor ballpark and luxury sidewalk resolutions.

Some of us merely want you to keep a neighborhood association president in the loop about Specific Plan requests. That's not unfair or unreasonable. SPs call for community input and yet you seem to be bent on minimizing community input.

It was not always like this. I remember early in your first term you made efforts to stay in contact with us regardless of where we were located in Salemtown. Remember the failed "Ardelia Park" development? That was blocks away from where I live, and yet you encouraged me to attend the community meeting on it.

What a difference six years makes. On Aerial Development's latest proposal you could have done the decent thing and asked developer Britnie Turner to confer with the president of Salemtown Neighbors last spring before seeking approval. Notifications would have gone out from there, which would have forestalled the criticism I heard last night regarding your lack of communication.

Instead, you lectured us on Monday and repeated ad nauseum that "communication is a two-way street". You never gave us a chance to go down that road. You let Metro Planning send out the post cards on a community meeting to residents within several hundred feet of the property, which covers a small geographical area as well as your proverbial ass. It gives you the ability to say that you did everything the law requires to notify the community.

But are the rest of us who are affected by this development supposed to have a special sixth sense to know when a developer approaches you to formulate a resolution that requires community input? Is that really realistic, given the information and access advantages developers enjoy over neighbors?

Nope. You never gave us a chance to go down the road. And frankly you did not come down that street yourself. Relying on the planning department alone is not good enough; as if it were not made sufficiently clear from all of the feedback you got back at last night's association business meeting (which Aerial chose not to attend). Planners have no skin in the Salemtown game.

Moreover, your subtle criticism that communication is a two-way street is bad faith. I receive global email blasts from you regularly on subjects that I may or may not be interested in. Sometimes those blasts contain rezoning and development information or information about community meetings. In 2014 I have been notified of a meeting on Jefferson Street HUD development and on the meetings concerning the new ballpark. But I received nothing directly from you on a specific plan in Salemtown. Metro planners like these plans because they want to see higher density everywhere regardless of questions other departments have about differences with the contexts of neighborhoods.

Aerial's plan promotes higher density, but it has also sent up red flags due to its differences with Salemtown context, especially since the property falls within Salemtown's conservation overlay.

So, why now do you expect me to keep tabs on this under-the-radar proposal when you have made efforts to notify me about others?

But you really hit an all time low last night when you resorted to insinuating that Salemtown Neighbors--which celebrates its 10 year anniversary next February as Salemtown's first association--is not representative of the views of Salemtown. You do not even know that to be true, because you never gave the association the chance to participate in the community discussion about this development. Your inference was spurious.

That kind of foolishness undermines the credibility of our own process, and ironically, since you have done enough to undermine your own. You were not going to hold a community meeting on the ballpark proposal until a fellow council member asked you in open meeting to do so. You stood in front of the council and vowed that your constituents opposed any requirements put on the Nashville Sounds ownership as part of a ballpark agreement, after a number of us argued to the contrary. You ignored requests to hold public meetings on the Metro Water toxic dump site near Salemtown and punted any advocacy you could do for the community to PR specialists at MWS.

For you, CM Gilmore, to try to cast aspersions on Salemtown Neighbors as if we have not over the years tried to represent fairly the interest of the neighborhood amounts to unbridled hypocrisy. Your lack of broader advocacy on the Aerial proposal indicates to me that you have given up representing all of us. The fact that you wrote a letter to the Metro Historic Zoning Commission asking them to re-hear Aerial's proposal, after the developers failed to appear before that body, shows with whom you have cast your lot, and it is not with Salemtown. The quick approval timeline last spring indicates an interest in minimizing community feedback. And you have the gall to suggest that we do not strive to be representative.

I understand that at this point you are likely just playing out the string of days in your last term as our CM. I understand that house flippers with some cash make more difference than voters do in that context. Even so, neighbors in Salemtown ought to have at least as much credibility with you as the outside developers who make no bones about wanting "to tear up some real estate" to generate more wealth to take out of the community:

Things could have gone better last night, CM Gilmore. Unfortunately, you missed your chance to make it better last spring.

Sincerely,
Mike Byrd

Salemtown Square coming to Salemtown. But where and how?

It is not unusual to read that Aerial Development is putting up houses in another neighborhood that cause concerns for some who already live in that neighborhood. Except for the real estate journalists who typically give them free advertising in the Tennessean, there continue to be some who have had concerns in the past with their ostentatious builds.

What I was surprised to see was a blurb in Getahn Ward's latest ode to Aerial about the developers starting work on "Salemtown Square," which will feature "six cottage-style homes." I haven't heard anything about this development. If builders are going to request any kind of zoning change, it is not yet showing up on searches I conducted on the Metro Planning website. If they are going to attempt the same sort of SP ("specific plan") rezoning (most zoning in Salemtown is "R6", which limits to duplexes or single-family detached), they will have to hold community meetings and get feedback from the neighborhood. That means incorporating feedback on everything from parking to capacity to design to materials used.

In Germantown AND East Nashville? (click on to enlarge)

The Salemtown Square website has a lot of imagery up of local vendors and organizations, but it is thin so far on the details and designs of the development itself. It also has some confusing pitch about the build "cresting" Germantown and "located in East Nashville's hot house market." Did the Aerial's content manager confuse the locations or this some sort of new marketing trend that only hipsters can understand? There is also a weird reference to to a bigger purpose: "creating a neighborhood association where old and new residents can protect, enhance and truly enjoy their new home and neighborhood." Funny, but I thought that had already happened a decade ago when we joined together to form "Salemtown Neighbors." Last time I checked, Salemtown's first association was still operational, so is Aerial going to jumpstart a competing association?

The images on the website, which I assume are intended to evoke historic feelings about Salemtown, bear little or no resemblance to any period in Salemtown's history that I have seen. This is also odd, because Salemtown Square developers claim to "honor [our] historic design and style." The area now called Salemtown was one of the original streetcar suburbs of Nashville and home to the blue-collar workers of the Warioto Cotton Mill and later the Werthan Bag Company. Aerial posts old photos of what look like a downtown square (Times Square?) and a Main Street in some unidentified locality. Old photos of Salemtown suggest a different kind of community. What eventually gets built may or may not have continuity with our real history regardless of the marketing hype.

Salemtown (inset photo) did not resemble Aerial's Main Street image 

Aerial developers have raised eyebrows in Salemtown in the past. I've heard long-time residents express displeasure about their disregard for the community. The people I have listened to do not believe Aerial has "honored" their history or style in the recent past. We will see what their plans are with Salemtown Square. If they eventually have to request rezoning for this development, they will have to listen to feedback from the neighborhood, and if they request an SP rezoning, they will be required to incorporate neighborhood input into their plan.


UPDATE: The Salemtown Square website seems to have disappeared. The links above take you to the Aerial website for now. The Salemtown Square domain is still registered to Aerial as this link attests. Not sure what this means, but the fact that websites can be scrubbed is one reason why I take screenshots to go with commentary.


UPDATE: The Salemtown Square website is back up and revised without WWII-era Main Street images unconnected to Salemtown of the same period. Those photos have been replaced by a photo of the old Downtown courthouse and by an aerial shot of Werthan Bag, Morgan Park, and Germantown. Closer to Salemtown, but still not Salemtown. Oh, I get it. They're going for a feeling not a fact.

They also are touting a Facebook page (which seems to be in process).

Salemtown developer focused on building "tiny" homes

Last month a local business and commerce tabloid interviewed developer, Mike Kenner, who in recent years made waves in Salemtown with tear downs and new builds. The article focuses on "tiny" houses that are being snapped up by the millennial generation, but I am most interested in what the article leaves out:

MiKen Development, is preparing to launch a development of 60 homes ranging from 850 to 1,600 square feet on a 5.5 acre site at 1206 60th Avenue N. in West Nashville across from West Park.

Unlike Baby Boomers, the millennial generation is less interested in large houses in the suburbs.

They want smaller homes in the heart of the city, “not the big McMansion in Brentwood where you drive an hour and a-half to work.

Value systems are changing,” Kenner explains.

Floor plans and home sizes are evolving to keep up with modern lifestyles. There’s no reason to build-in space for a master bedroom sitting area because that’s not where millennials are spending their time. The same is true of dining rooms.

“They want to walk out the door and see their friends at restaurants and bars, not entertain in a formal dining room,” Kenner says.

Smaller houses have another advantage. They have prices that put ownership within reach of young buyers. Kenner expects prices in his small-home development to range from $199,000 to $350,000.

That’s more than the median price of houses throughout the Nashville region, which was $195,000 in March, according to the Greater Nashville Association of Realtors.

I would be interested in hearing from some millennials out there on whether they agree with how they are characterized here.

In my opinion, what slips through the cracks in this piece is the enduring presence (and in some places the increase) in urban neighborhoods of families with children. In one of my previous discussions with Mr. Kenner I mentioned that I have seen an increase in young couples in Salemtown pushing strollers around. Now, I'm a baby boomer who moved to Salemtown stroller-in-tow 10 years ago and there were small children then too (although, the neighborhoods was more ethnically and generationally diverse than it is now).

I'm concerned that these developers seem to ignore the needs of families, even millennials with children, in the name of marketing to empty-nesters. Likewise, I wonder if they conflate millennials and empty-nesters. On the one hand, they claim that the younger generation wants to live in places around West Park and in the North End. On the other hand, their tiny builds seem to assume that millennials are going to move to bigger suburban house when and if they have children.

Their contradiction begs the question that I have posed to Mr. Kenner repeatedly one-to-one as well as at community meetings: why not build a diverse stock of housing in urban neighborhoods that meets the millennials' preference for smaller houses while also addressing the probability of future family planning with larger offerings, including adequate yards (even common ones)? Higher density need not mean either "tiny" or family-unfriendly. Why not build to demands of both empty-nesters and families? Why not commit to long-term quality of life and retention of neighbors instead of merely maximizing short-term gains?


[On a side note: the last time I spoke with Mr. Kenner, he was still moving ahead with his SP in northern Salemtown called Salemtown Cottages. One of the changes that has occurred is that he bought Aerial Development out of that partnership. Since this is "special plan" zoning, we need to make sure that all of the provisions that the community agreed upon in exchange for MiKen getting its requested rezoning are met].

Was I sold a bill of goods on Salemtown's overlay a year ago?

About this time last year I expressed opposition to Salemtown's conservation overlay (now approved) based on my sense that it was being rammed through without regard for democratic process (full disclosure: I am generally an overlay/preservation supporter).

One of the claims that I heard overlay supporters make was an acknowledgement that ignoring democratic process in the name of other ends is generally not desirable, but that Salemtown's overlay was an extenuating and urgent circumstance, because it might be "the last conservation overlay that Metro's planning and zoning departments would approve." People I listened to told me straight-faced that Metro was going to move away from conservation overlays.

Almost exactly a year later I feel a bit betrayed by those in whom I placed trust. I am reading the following in the latest newsletter from the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission newsletter:

Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlays More Popular Than Ever 

Due to the booming local economy and the increase in infill development, more and more neighborhoods are seeing the value of historic zoning. 

The purpose of historic zoning is to guide change in a neighborhood in a way that preserves its historic character and fabric. It does not change use. Most property owners want the additional zoning because it has been proven to protect property values ....

Most neighborhoods prefer the Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay (NCZO) where the goal is to preserve historic “character.” Only demolition, new construction and moving a builidng [sic] are reviewed.

Holy moly. That is no where close to the dire pitch presented to me a year ago when Salemtown's overlay hung by a slim thread with community meetings threatening to kill our chances at an overlay. Were overlay supporters just blowing smoke up my skirt to get me to drop my principled and public objections to Salemtown conservation overlay? Your guess is as good as mine.

I just know that I'll take their red flags with a grain of salt next time.

Whites Creek lost a battle but not yet the war

You can bet that these 43 lots are only Phase I.

Community opponents of Ole South development's plan to sprawl 43 suburban-style homes across previously tree-canopied rural properties held a brave stand at yesterday's Planning Commission public hearing, but they had the weight of law and zoning against them. As an outsider-looking-in with a little experience with planning process, it struck me as a long shot to stop Ole South from building a cluster subdivision approved by the Planning Department without any requirement to rezone.

And Ole South did not even bother to have one of their owners speak at the public hearing. Tom White, real estate lawyer and lobbyist, took care of the developers presentation and rebuttal (and Mr. White reserved his right vocally to end the public hearing with a rebuttal several times during his presentation). For their part, dozens and dozens of community opponents rose to speak against the subdivision to a commission that has been described to me as "the most developer-friendly commission in Nashville history".

Commission Chairman James McLean dished a not-so-veiled warning to opponents that he would stop the public hearing if speakers started repeating themselves because the commissioners wanted to get home at a reasonable hour. As if regular folks out in the gallery had not taken time out of their busy schedules, away from their families to sit for hours through other planning business that did not involve them in order to have their 2 minutes to speak their minds at what was ultimately the end of the meeting. As if commissioners have more important things to do than to hear the expressed interests of a Whites Creek community that is watching their character change without much control--beyond the hearing--over it. Given that most commission business involves relatively uncontroversial, unemotional work on planning, I thought Mr. McLean (who is himself a developer) showed little patience, humility or humor with that warning. Who isn't busy in their own personal lives nowadays, Mr. Chairman?

But the opponents stood out by emphasizing plural concerns, admitting and shortening their comments when they sensed that they were repeating what had already been said. The difference in the public presentations for and against could not be more stark. The emphasis from supporters of Ole South was strictly on the legal side of the argument: the company had complied with what zoning requires and they had toed the line Metro planners and CM Walter Hunt set for them, so at bare minimum they deserved to build their cluster lots. Their basic message was that they achieved the lowest common denominators developers have to, and they saw no need to strive for anything higher than their bottom line.

For their part, the opponents of Ole South appealed to a wide range of arguments to make the basic case that they expect development (no one whom I heard expressed NIMBYism), but they wanted something higher than what developers were offering. They appealed to their history, to consistency with the village-like character of Whites Creek, to the idea of quality in building materials, to the common sense notion of fairness that they ought to have the same planning opportunities as other communities, to environmental protection, to a unique and attractive culture comparable with few other places (Bells Bend, Leipers Fork were mentioned), to tourism, to the culture of land and green space and to their diverse community. Their appeals were thick and rich compared to the rather cold, calculated and cynical statements by an attorney who seemed to me ready to pull a trigger on a lawsuit if Ole South did not get commission approval.

Keep in mind that Tom White is the same lawyer who told the Tennessean that the suburban sprawl plan had plenty of community support for passage. The turnout of opponents at the public hearing proved that false. Tom White is also same lawyer who argued at last week's Whites Creek community meeting that he believed commission support for the plan was "highly likely".

This particular statement from the Old South side proved to be true, but not before questions were raised, mostly by commissioner Stewart Clifton, who acknowledged CM Hunt's interest in approving the plan while also asserting his interest in making sure that Ole South was consistent with the properties on the same side of the streets it would sit on. CM Hunt seemed to want to refer the commission to a completely different development rather than consider the streetside consistency. Mr. Clifton wanted to defer until he could get some answers from planning on whether creating 43 plots was consistent with the adjacent properties. Chairman McLean denied Mr. Clifton a vote on a deferral, called for a vote on CM Hunt's motion to approve the Ole South plan (amended to prohibit duplexes) and the commission voted 4-2 to approve.

It is worth noting that Mr. Clifton pointed out that 3 commissioners who "should be" voting on the Ole South bid were not present. One of those was Andree LeQuire, who had sent a request announced to the commission for a deferral of Old South's plan because she wanted more information about the water and sewer infrastructure Ole South was planning. Chairman McLean waved all of that off before holding the vote to approve.

But there is another significant, but understated fallout from this hearing. During Mr. Clifton's questions, Planning Director Rick Bernhardt noted that the commission had asked for urban character infill regulations but had not requested rural character infill regulations from planners. It was acknowledged that Ole South's approval hinged on old, outdated zoning regs and that there was a lack of infill regs for agricultural communities. After the vote, Mr. Bernhardt asked the commission whether they wanted Planning to pursue those regulations and I did not hear much of a response. Might this be where a concerned Whites Creek community can wage their next battle for growth consistent their community character? They lost this battle, but there still seems to me a war to wage in defense of their way of life. Ole South's holdings in Whites Creek are much larger and perhaps Metro Planning needs more prompting for infill regulations before the developers completely suburbanize backcountry.

In the end, this proposal was CM Walter Hunt's to lose. As ugly as the Whites Creek community meeting was, as impressive as the turnout to the public hearing was, CM Hunt seemed to have Metro planners (in fairness, Planning's hands seemed tied) and commission votes on his side. He did not need to do much compromising with constituents to get approval. Having a land holdings lawyer pounding away on what was legal from the podium is also effective leverage, given that Metro is likely not looking to get caught up in one more lawsuit. While CM Hunt promised to have a historical survey of the properties conducted (no traffic study has been done), I was disappointed myself that he did not at least extend an offer to opponents to start working to revise their outdated community plan, which is a reasonable request regardless of Ole South.

Moreover, take a look at how CM Hunt's campaign for office has been the beneficiary of donors with direct interests in land development, construction, new housing starts and housing market. Follow the money form some of the donors I culled from his campaign finance records since 2011:

• Robert Colson, real estate broker and property auctioneer ($100)
• Tom Cone, Sr., owner of Cone Oil convenience stores ($1,000)
• Roy Dale, engineer to developers ($250)
• Howard Eley, Jr., highways and ramps contractor ($250)
• Joe Hall, lobbyist for cable telecommunications assc. ($200)
• Ronald Ligon, Realtor ($500) and Susan Ligon ($500)
• Alexander Marks, developer ($250)
• William Massey, Jr., electrical contractor ($100)
• Jim McLean, developer and Planning Commission Chair ($100)
• Gregory Richardson, developer ($500)
• John Ring, developer ($500)
• Glen Wallis, Realtor ($100)
• L.H. Hardaway, Jr. construction company owner ($100)
• William Freeman, real estate investment company owner ($100)
• James Smith, developer ($250)
• Bernard Werthan, developer ($100)
• Feller Brown, realty and auction company owner ($100)
• Odell Binkley, waste management ($100)
• H.G. Hill Realty, PAC ($100)
• Tennessee Realtors, PAC ($250)
• Precision Plumbing, Whites Creek ($1,000)

That kind of money is more incentive to shepherd subdivision plans through rather than incorporate community concerns if one is not required to. This list is something for the rest of us to keep in mind should CM Hunt run for at-Large council in the future. He may be our council member someday.

But there is also something else to keep in mind as far as I am concerned. One of the supporters of Ole South said during last night's public hearing, "Whatever Walter Hunt wants, Walter Hunt should get." That prospect itself is troubling given campaign finance, because it won't be just what Walter Hunt wants. It will also be what his most influential campaign donors want.

And those of us without the money (or the community organization) to keep up with his donors will likely be left behind.

Whites Creek leaders mobilize to slow suburban sprawl across their rural community

I received emails from concerned leaders in the farming community around White's Creek Pike above Briley Parkway in far North Nashville. They are alarmed about a high density suburban-style development slated for consideration at Metro Planning. They tell me that CM Walter Hunt is sponsoring a community meeting Wednesday (Feb. 19) at 6:00p at KIPP Academy Nashville (3420 Knight Drive) to discuss the plans with the developer.

I took a closer look at the area above Briley Pkwy, bounded by Whites Creek and I-24 on the sides. I was immediately struck by the contrast in a satellite view between the backcountry appearance north of Briley relative to the suburban sprawl that lies below Briley and to the east and to the west.

Nashville's shrinking metropolitan farmlands

Remarkably, this relatively unspoiled green space is not very far from our home in urban core Salemtown, but the contrast could not be more stark.

Nonetheless, the leaders deserve our support because if the community planning process is compromised for any neighbors it is compromised for all neighbors.

An excerpt from an alert sent today from leaders to the community:

A new subdivision is coming to Whites Creek - 43 houses on 11.8 acres (1 house per ¼ acre) on the northeast corner of Green Lane and Whites Creek Pike (the entrance to Whites Creek from Briley Pkwy).

Cornerstone Land Company, the owner of the property, has been buying land throughout Whites Creek, now owning 128.5 acres. They are seeking a subdivision permit from the Planning Commission for 11.8 of these acres and have contracted with Murfreesboro developer, Ole South Development. Since this pristine, tree covered land is zoned R10 (1 house per ¼ acre), they could develop the remaining 116 acres into 464 more homes. We must act now!

Whites Creek, north of Briley Parkway, is a beautiful, rural area. If this development is approved, high density, suburban housing will be your first impression upon exiting Briley Parkway onto WCP....

Our council representative, Walter Hunt, has the power to stop this development and put a moratorium on future developments until our community has the opportunity to update our community design plan the way other neighborhoods in Nashville have. Councilman Hunt has allowed ours to go unrevised for over 10 years. We have the oldest plan in Davidson County!

Please keep this on your radars. If Metro muscle tramples over the interests of Nashville's rural residents (who simply want the same community planning opportunities most of us enjoy), they may need our support.

An urban core mindset extends beyond one generation regardless of what developers say

The times Tennessean real estate reporter Bill Lewis has written about Salemtown he shows a habit of going back to the same recently arrived developers rather than talking to different people around our neighborhood. As a result, he tends to write slanted and unrepresentative copy about what happens here.

One of the developers on whom Lewis relies is Aerial's Britnie Turner, who saturated Salemtown with homogeneous three-story "umbilical chord duplexes" in order to attract young buyers. Last September Lewis gave her credit for morphing Salemtown from "fringe" to a "community of rooftop hot tubs". Of course, we are so much more than a community of rooftop hot tubs.

In Lewis's latest piece on Salemtown, he quotes Turner as saying that the "mindset" to move to the urban core is that of "a generation". She does not specify who that generation is, but we can deduce from her comments in last year's article and the context of this one that 20-to-30-year-olds are those to whom she markets her product.

Given that we moved to Salemtown a decade ago and I am 50 years old, the claim that the mindset is exclusively that of the younger generations is patently false. I know Salemtown residents who also do not fit in Turner's one generation.

Although, it may fit in with Aerial Development's agenda: to only build homes for an exclusive group of young adults not looking to lay down roots here and not likely to have children of school age. The absentee developer's agenda for growth in the urban core may be as homogeneous as her building stock is. Aerial also seems to be getting criticism in East Nashville, according to a separate news report:

Jerry Vandiver has lived in east Nashville for 28 years. He owns three homes there and is proud of the area.

"We want the people who move into it to be proud as well," Vandiver said.

But, lately, he said he has seen historic homes replaced by brand new two- and three-story duplexes.

"They don't fit the look of the neighborhood and the charm of east Nashville," Vandiver said.

Now, his homeowners' association is collecting surveys from neighbors and plans to ask Metro for a conservation overlay expansion. It would require special permission and standards before tearing down historic homes.

"You cannot build umbilical cord duplexes once the overall is in place," Vandiver said.

Britnie Turner, the owner of Aerial Development Group, builds those types of duplexes and says they help accommodate growth.

"Nashville is working very hard to welcome newcomers. Where are they gonna go? Most of them want to live within the urban core," Turner said.

She also says growth is a good thing.

"It's better for the city's tax base. It increases the walkability, and that promotes healthier lifestyles," she said.

Salemtown received a conservation overlay last year, so Aerial and other developers have to slow the pace of tear downs and the insipid cloning of their hot-tub towers. Time will tell whether they have taken us to the tipping point of losing diversity.

In her comments about growth in East Nasty, Ms. Tuner mentions nothing about diversity or other quality of life issues as fitting within her priorities. Growth can be good when it is balanced by these other priorities. But growth is not good in and of itself. It is neutral in and of itself. It can be good or bad depending on whether it is allowed to explode in extremes.

Salemtown has been diverse ethnically, culturally, economically and generationally in the time we have lived here. It is getting less diverse, and I am concerned that one of the reasons is the development that has happened recently by companies like Aerial who admit that their offerings are suited to a single generation. Salemtown has been more than just a temporary layover for lifestyle-oriented young adults between their cap-and-gown commencement and the grown-up gravitas of a future home in a Franklin or Brentwood exurb (thus, the Mayor's calls for a regional transit plan to help them to keep transitioning out of town without the cars). I believe that some companies, strictly bent on money, would like to flip Salemtown from a plural community to a stage along the path to somewhere else.

We need developers committed to market to many different types of people, not just one generation. Or maybe we just need more builders to check Aerial Development's attempted cornering of the housing market here. A diversity of developer priorities would be healthier for us. That way people will choose to move here and stay, even when they tire of their rooftop hot tubs or their wishes for a simple place to crash close to their clubbing spots.

There is enough of a niche for a young adult generation here without reducing the entire neighborhood to that niche. One way or the other, Salemtown is not going to survive, let alone prosper, on just one generation.

Someone needs to kick this ballpark concept until it bleeds baseball

Practically no culture critics that I am aware of have weighed in on the Mayor's new Sulphur Dell ballpark design. That was not the case in 2006, when the Sounds and developers had a design for the Riverfront. I recall weeks of discussion about the design.

Christine Kreyling, co-author of The Plan of Nashville, wrote of the Sounds proposal at the time that it did not integrate the ballpark facility successfully with the other mixed-use development that was part of the project. Looking over the images released for Sulphur Dell, I wonder if Kreyling's opinion would be that different of Mayor Karl Dean's project for North Nashville. Rather than creating a cozy fit between ballpark, residential and parking garage, Sulphur Dell could be accused of repeating the "willy-nilly wedged blocks" of 2006 "Soundsville". Designers seemed to have fit the garage and the residential buildings more carefully along the greenway beyond the outfield wall, but the ballpark seems dropped down with little thought to continuity.

The ballpark in the Sulphur Dell plan itself looks like a low-profile afterthought, almost like the mission here is to express that this is strictly a real estate deal and not the resurrection of hollowed ground of primordial baseball diamonds of old (as went the marketing campaign went before the proposal was approved). In 2006, Kreyling reported that developers intended that residential and ballpark not strive for integration "in case at some point in the future the stadium is demolished." Is the same logic in effect at Sulphur Dell in 2014? Because the new ballpark seems to be strictly an expendable utility player on this field of dreams.

Kreyling also criticized the awkward way that the rounded shell of the 2006 grandstands "stuck on" a squared porch "diluted the strength of the building form." The Sulphur Dell proposal differs in that the rounded wall behind home plate is centered between blocks of its own squared porch instead of pulled toward a corner, but the style looks similar: the Dell's squared off porch seems to nullify the classic ballpark form.

Rather than emerging unmistakably streetside as a ballpark, the form seems to be swallowed into a blank stone wall. If you took the literal reference of the name of the place off the Jackson St. windows, would the building itself communicate "ballpark" or "baseball"? Or could the rounded shell that peeks out from its sandwich between blocks merely seem to be any building suiting any purpose at all? Indeed, the Jackson St. exterior looks like a hoary back wall to the development footprint to the degree that they could add to it a loading dock that would not appear to be out-of-place.

After the blight of Greer Stadium, Nashville may feel lucky to have any new ballpark design at all. But the one they are planning at Sulphur Dell seems to recede to the point of insignificance relative to the real estate around it. One reviewer of stadiums across the USA referred to the exterior of Titans' LP Field as "unspectacular", and I am struck by how the stone and glass skin of the new baseball park resemble points along the blasé hull of LP Field. If baseball in North Nashville history is as venerable, is as important as boosters of the Mayor's plan have insisted for weeks now, don't we deserve a more robust and unmistakable baseball aesthetic for the old ball game, befitting the history of Sulphur Dell?


UPDATE: one of the reasons that the ballpark part of the Sulphur Dell development is more utility than frontline may be because the Sounds club owner, Frank Ward, is more of a real estate mogul than a baseball guy. In a November interview, Mayor Karl Dean emphasized the Ward family's real estate credentials to insist that the real estate would succeed:

I think people need to remember that the current owners of the Sounds came into baseball with a background in real estate development. In fact, the son of Frank Ward, who's the principal owner of the Sounds, that's how he makes his living is real estate development and building student housing. So they have a lot of experience and we're very confident that they want this to move forward.

I don't have a problem with this family wanting to make some money on their real estate business, but the reality that the ballpark element in the development is downplayed and the appointments in the ballpark are meager suggests that baseball is not the focus that it should be.

When I look at Memphis's Autozone Park in contrast I think, "This looks like a park baseball people would build":

Controlling public meetings amounts to controlling outcomes

As we rapidly approach one of the first announced community meetings on "the Amp" bus rapid transit system connecting East Nashville and Downtown to West End, the Mayor's minions continue to insist (debatably) that the public has been given fair opportunities to address the questions of when and where rapid transit will go. The Mayor himself disqualified North Nashville from the process, saying that we should have read his mind and kissed the ring years in advance if we wanted to be considered worthy of rapid transit.

The Chamber of Commerce (which supports Amp) hired a lawyer-up public relations firm, which suggests to me that these meetings are going to be more bully pulpits for making the sale of AMP than they are open town hall meetings for gathering input from you and me.

Metro has a particularly heavy-handed history of conducting community meetings, whether it be holding meetings at days and hours inconvenient for most people to attend, not plainly specifying in published agendas that certain questions were up for discussion, couching issues in specialized jargon that makes average heads spin or strictly controlling how questions are asked to discourage messy democracy. These tactics become especially nasty given the strong executive form of Metro government, where voters have very little influence after elections on the Mayor's Office.

I've documented over and again here the draconian tactics that are used in the planning and rezoning process by Metro officials, but I went back through my emails people have sent me from community meetings they attended to find more examples.

One that stands out was related to me by Mike Peden. Last winter CM Edith Langster, empowered by a couple of developers and Metro Planning, filed a Midtown rezoning request to allow a number of properties to be exempted from a compromise supported by the community in 2012 to prepare for overlays consistent with the Midtown Community Plan. Community plans are heavily influenced by participatory public meetings periodically held.

Leaders in the community expressed concern by email about Langster's bill. Metro Planning held a community meeting last March and CM Jason Holleman encouraged constituents to attend saying of Langster's proposal that it would not provide "protections for individually National Register Eligible/National Register Listed buildings and design guidelines will not be included for the area around Elliston Place".

Mike attended the meeting and related what he witnessed:

The room was packed. Several people had to stand.

The attorney from the Planning Office that spoke is clearly in favor of ... CM Langster’s proposed rezoning. He spoke as if that bill has already passed.

There were several questions raised about transit and MTA, but he made it clear he was not going to discuss that issue.

Jason Holleman attempted to ask questions but the attorney from Planning would not allow him to speak. He said that is why they requested everyone write questions on the cards so he would not have to get into a one-on-one discussion with anyone

Community plans always involve discussions about transit options, so why should they be prohibited by a lawyer in a community meeting? Less than a month later a Metro Planning spokesperson would tell a Vanderbilt writer of a "cultural shift" prompting zoning changes in Midtown that included the need to "cut down expenditures on gas". If planners can bring up transit as a motivator for their policies, why can't the community raise the question with planners in community meetings?

Also, requiring questions on note cards is just another way of keeping the unwashed masses at arm's length. And shutting down a council member with questions about impact on design and preservation seems extreme.

But these are the kind of tactics you have to watch out for in the upcoming community meetings, which they tell you now are about getting more of your input. Will they listen and incorporate input? Given the track record, I am not a believer.

Salemtown community meeting details that the Nashville Post got wrong

CM Erica Gilmore mailed the following to Salemtown homes last week:

The real estate journo at the Nashville Post erroneously reported that this meeting occurred last week, and as of now they still have not corrected. Maybe they have no clue on what is going on.

I spoke with the developer, Mike Kenner, after last week's overlay community meeting. I told him this is a concept I could support as long as he incorporated the community feedback appropriate to SP rezoning into his plans. So far he is saying good things like, for instance, sound buffers along the interstate. I'll keep you posted on how receptive he is to neighbors' opinions at tomorrow's meeting. And, of course, if he gets rezoning, there is accountability for follow-up on the plan as approved.

Developer watchdog: Mike Kenner proposes SP for edge of Salemtown

Last year I described problems with perceptions of a 5th Avenue development and I suggested that we keep our eyes open in the future for any other rezoning requests by the developer, Mike Kenner. The future is now: the Nashville Post has the latest spin on properties along Rosa Parks and I-65 that Mr. Kenner wants to rezone for "cottage-style" abodes. He is seeking a "specific plan":

For Salemtown Cottages, Britnie Faith Turner serves as principal of Aerial Development, with Michael Kenner the principal of MiKen Development.

Kenner said the next step in the process is an April 10 [date changed; see below] community meeting (one has already been held) at Morgan Park Community Center. Metro Councilwoman Erica Gilmore, within whose district the proposed development would sit, is expected to attend.

“We want to develop in Salemtown with the support of Councilwoman Gilmore,” said Kenner, adding that Civil Site will serves as the project’s main engineer, with Village Real Estate Service’s City Living Team to market and sell the homes. He did not disclose the name of the architect.

“We’ve already submitted an SP (specific plan) and are waiting for comments from the Metro Planning Department,” Kenner said. “If everything goes well, we’ll get Planning and Council support and break ground within 90 days.”

Kenner said the development team will purchase eight different parcels on which Salemtown Cottages will be built only after all Metro approvals are finalized.

Rezoning for a specific plan allows a development to integrate elements of the neighborhood and allows neighborhoods a voice through community meetings and public hearings. It has been used well and misused, but it is generally designed to address "the unique characteristics of an individual property" while ensuring that "the surrounding neighborhood and community at-large are not adversely affected".

The concept posted here to keep our community informed.

In his interview, Mr. Kenner did not say he was seeking the support of Salemtown neighbors, even as he admitted that he was seeking CM Gilmore's support. However, the spirit of the original SP legislation is that developers seek the support of the neighborhood and not only the council member. Feedback about integration with community character and plans are welcomed in the process of this, and the council member is supposed to facilitate that process. In exchange the developer does not have to navigate pre-existing zoning that itself may no longer fit community character and hampers the build. It is vital that Salemtown residents attend the meetings and public hearings and give feedback that can be incorporated into the SP. It is also important that Mr. Kenner, who lives in the Sylvan Park neighborhood, listen to feedback in good faith.

I emailed Erica Gilmore to tell her that I did not receive an announcement about the April 10 meeting advertised in the paper and to ask her for all the details. She replied that the meeting had been moved to April 17 and that she was working on a mailer. I will post the details here when I am made aware of them.

Former CM Mike Jameson held an SP community meeting process almost 7 years ago that gives us a good idea of what it is supposed to look like:

JAMESON: “If you build a coffee shop in a residential area, right now you just get zoning variances or terms of conditions and it doesn’t say anything about hours of operation, so many parking spaces and so forth. SP allows that and it becomes your zoning. This coffee shop will have 6 parking spaces and will close at 9pm and it won’t play loud music or live music after 9pm or whatever you want to put in and that is the zoning.”

Both traditional and SP zoning have to go through the same process: planning commission approval, public meetings, and three readings before the metro council. But SP lays out the land usage up front, and neighborhoods have the opportunity to change what goes into a given property ....

SP can be used to apply design guidelines, or even regulate what types of businesses are in an area. Councilman Jameson wants to use SP to curb the number of duplexes built in his district. He hopes that including the neighborhood on the front end will give his SP duplex regulation smoother passage.

In the case of Mr. Kenner's request, the SP process actually allows us to keep tabs on what he is doing with his development and how whether he is responsive to community feedback. Once the SP is approved, the developer has to abide by the terms and we can verify whether he is or not. During a separate SP in 2007, I documented how another development team initially reversed course on installing brick veneer, which had been mandated in the SP. They would have had to go through whole rezoning process again if they had not gone back and installed it.

Let me reemphasize the important point that all neighbors interested in the character of our neighborhood should attend community meetings and public hearings on the Salemtown Cottages SP and keep up with the process. If you are a property owner who lives out of town, follow the news on it and write CM Gilmore with your feedback ("Erica.Gilmore@nashville.gov"). If you have concerns about parking, noise, signage, landscaping, design, number of homes, square footage, density, etc. you should involve yourself in this process. You can be sure that both the developer and the council member will. You cannot have any influence over them if you do not participate.

Salemtown Overlay bill to be deferred

This morning around 9:30 I received an email from the executive director of Metro's Historic Zoning Commission acknowledging my concerns about Erica Gilmore's conservation overlay bill and saying that the legislation may be deferred for a month for revisions based on neighbors' input.

This afternoon Salemtown Neighbors president Freddie O'Connell announced that both supporters and opponents of the overlay mutually agreed to accept the MHZC exec's offer to defer the overlay until April. O'Connell also said that the proposal will be more effectively aligned with the North Nashville Community Plan. He announced that Salemtown properties not conforming to the conservation overlay could qualify for an urban design overlay.

These four advancements--proper forums for community feedback, conformity to the 2010 community plan, an urban design overlay, and deferral of a flawed overlay bill--have all been advocated here at the blog. So, I'm declaring a victory for those of us who have been skeptical about the overlay for a year now. I feel like someone in Metro finally heard us and has slowed down the crazy train.

Oh, and the losers here are the 2012 SNNA executive committee who defied the community plan and launched this disputable, untransparent mess to begin with.

Advance Financial's campaign contributions evade tracking

After I posted on a Facebook discussion of Germantown's new predatory lender, Advance Financial, I received the following observations from Mike Peden (who single-handedly tracks campaign finance) on the lender's influence:

Advance Financial is making political contributions two ways.

They are making donations as "Advance Financial" and as "Advance PAC" [political action committee].

"Advance Financial" can make unlimited contributions to PAC's without filing a disclosure, which is the case with the $10,000 contribution to Tennessee First.  But they cannot make a contribution directly to a candidate without filing a disclosure.

"Advance PAC" can make contributions to other PAC's and candidates, but must file a disclosure.

So, you cannot tell how much Advance Financial has given just by looking at the Advance PAC disclosure.

It is very confusing.

I am convinced that the purpose of the loopholes and misdirection of campaign finance is intended to be confusing so that influence and power are hidden from communities who would stage popular revolts if they could see through the ruse.

Mike's comments further sustain my point that letting businesses off the hook with arguments like Ron Wynn's (that they are just trying to make a buck) is irresponsible and naive. They system of planning and zoning is gamed, juiced and lubed by business money, and the entrepreneurs and executives, as well as the politicians they woo, should be held personally responsible for the maze and the mess.

Rezone for a restaurant in Salemtown? Don't be dazed by the dream

So, there is this rumor floating around Salemtown and promoted by certain segments that a developer on the 1600 block of 6th Av North is trying to woo owners of East Nashville burger joint, bar, and beer garden The Pharmacy to open a second place in our neighborhood (or at least to woo a restaurant "like The Pharmacy"). The 6th Av property, like most of Salemtown, is zoned for residential, so the developer would have to rezone either for commercial or mixed-use if they come to an understanding with restaurateurs.

Screenshot of 1604 6th Av N & homes from Google Maps

The developers who bought 1604 6th Av N last summer are absentee. They are Oak Tree Partners LLC of Gallatin, TN. They were founded in 2011 and they flipped another holding in their own town into a liquor store. According to Next Door comments forwarded to me, Salemtown Works (a 501c3, not to be confused with Salemtown Neighbors Neighborhood Association) president, Molly McCluer has corresponded with Oak Tree Partners. She encouraged neighborhood residents online to "lobby" The Pharmacy owners (the restaurant is owned by Terrell Raley) to open a restaurant in Salemtown. No word on which owners of restaurants "like The Pharmacy" are being so lobbied.

Now I don't question the value of having restaurants in higher density urban neighborhoods as long as there is careful planning and attention to traffic and parking impact and noise abatement. I have expressed support on this blog for a number of local businesses, including those that feature bars and restaurants. And we spend our money in these establishments to support them particularly because we appreciate the chance to walk rather than drive to do so.

But Salemtown sends the wrong signals to developers when we unquestioningly welcome them with open arms and no critical concerns. We send the wrong signals when we assume that, if we support a specific zoning change here, developers--especially absentee developers--will deliver the restaurants they float in front of our noses as wishful concepts to get their rezoning. We send the wrong signals when we appear to fall in love with their product and generally appear desperate for development when we should be asking developers to compromise to a win-win.

I live very close to the property that other people in my neighborhood who appear to live farther away want to see flipped into The Pharmacy. If I lived where they live I might want that dream, too. The reason I like going to the Pharmacy, besides the fare, is because it's across the river in East Nasty, and I do not have to worry about late-night bar closings near my property or noisy beer gardens.

But if this rezoning bobs to the surface, I will be contacting Mr. Terrell myself to ask about parking, traffic, his closing hours of 3am 7 days a week, and any amplified music played in a beer garden on top of the voices of dozens of customers on school nights. I see that he has a kid about my youngest kid's age, so he would probably understand why I would ask. I might even visit The Pharmacy late night with a decibel meter to measure the noise level myself.

Before I could support a bar and restaurant with outside service near my house on a property that is currently zoned residential, I would need assurances. And I have already talked to a couple of my neighbors who tell me they would need the same assurances. I bet I could find other neighbors who would be sympathetic, especially parents.

One online review of The Pharmacy indicates that parking is a problem in its East Nashville location. In 12South residents have been struggling with shrinking parking due to business growth for years, and the tensions came to a head in 2012. Following multiple meetings between 12South neighborhood association, the Belmont-Hillsboro Neighbors neighborhood association, and 12South businesses, affected residents have successfully navigated the parking permit application process to reserve street parking for themselves. They have a public hearing set with Metro Traffic and Parking Commission on March 11. I bet reserved on-street parking for residents will be approved.

Given that Salemtown has primarily on-street parking, support for residential permits is one thing among others that developers and business owners should be willing to give in order to get support for rezoning. One among others, like noise abatement.

Speaking of the impact of neighborhood businesses on parking, I meant to respond to Chris Chamberlain's observations about on-street parking in a Nashville Scene review of Germantown's Rolf and Daughters back in November. Chamberlain wrote:

Although Rolf and Daughters may seem to be in a remote location with no dedicated parking lot, intrepid diners will quickly realize that it is really only about a minute past the Nashville Farmers' Market and just a couple minutes from the interstate at the Rosa Parks exit. There is plenty of street parking on Taylor Street, so you shouldn't have to walk far to enjoy this new gem in the local restaurant crown.

I drove down Taylor tonight at rush hour, just before dinner time. I saw no ample on-street parking. There was ample parking if you were willing to walk at least a block to get to the place, because cars were choking both sides of the street (and what is the impact on residents who live on 7th Av off Taylor?). Taylor is so narrow that moving traffic is reduced to one squeezed lane when the ample parking spaces are occupied. Without traffic flaggers, two-way traffic on Taylor would be impossible on nights when Rolf and Daughters is slammed and on-street parking backfills for two or three blocks. Ample parking? Did Chamberlain closely look at the street before writing that?

All questions about traffic and parking impact and noise abatement must be soberly considered by Salemtown before we indulge ourselves in the seduction of developers' dreams.

Despite expressed reservations, Salemtown overlay moves on

I received word that the overlay will be one of the matters up for discussion at tonight's Salemtown Neighbors business meeting. Here is what current association president, Freddie O'Connell, has communicated about SNNA's stance on the overlay:

Councilwoman Gilmore took the next step in an SNNA initiative that began last year: pursuit of a conservation overlay for Salemtown. She signed off on the initial application for the historic zoning change with the Metro Historic Zoning Commission. As currently planned, it would cover 3rd-7th Avenues North for the area between (but not including) Hume and I-65. The proposed design guidelines are here:

http://www.nashville.gov/Historical-Commission/About/Historic-Zoning-Commission/Whats-New.aspx

There will be a number of opportunities to weigh in on the guidelines (everything from suggesting changes to expressing support or opposition) as this process plays out over the next few months. SNNA voted last year in favor of an overlay, and I'm sure this will remain a topic of important discussion until it's either in place, postponed, or withdrawn. I plan to keep the association informed throughout the process. Let me know if you have any questions.

Other neighbors have approached me with their concerns. One forwarded me his letter to Erica Gilmore with pointed expectations:

I am not against some form of overlay for the Salemtown neighborhood. In fact, I support it. However, I believe the process has been rushed and the stakeholders haven't been provided adequate time or information to make an informed decision on the future of our neighborhood property values.

Furthermore, I do not think a walkthrough with a small group of homeowners and the MHZC is appropriate due diligence to circumvent height restrictions and other regulations ALREADY COVERED BY METRO CODES ....

I urge you to delay sending this proposed zoning overlay to metro council until the following steps have been taken.

1. MHZC makes the latest draft of the overlay available on their website, and sends notification to each stakeholder.
2. Stakeholders should have a minimum of 14 days to review the latest draft.
3. MHZC should thoroughly document their decision criteria for "contributing/non contributing" properties, as well as their block by block criteria for the arbitrary determination of the "feel" of Salemtown.
4. Another public meeting, this time with a minimum of 10 days notice, should be held. This should give you a better feel of the neighborhoods view on this overlay.

I have been one of the opponents of this conservation overlay not for the usual reasons that it limits the earning potential of rising property values or that it discourages development. I do not agree that overlays necessarily do either one.

I have plainly opposed this overlay because it is based on a survey that was not objectively or transparently conducted by last year's SNNA executive board (while this year's SNNA leadership expresses more openness to community feedback, there are holdovers from last year's board). I helped found SNNA (8 years ago next month) with the idea of being an inclusive, process-oriented, civil association that involved people in determining government policies that affected them. The survey on which the conservation overlay is based is a total betrayal of that principle.

Until a new, more honest survey is conducted, I cannot support this overlay. And I surely do not believe that the ends (conservation of neighborhood character) justifies the means (trampling on and discarding democratic process). There need not be unanimous buy-in for an overlay, but the process to determine buy-in must be authentic and free from the appearance of bias of the views of the few. As it is this proposal is a farce without due diligence, and I support those who call for starting the process over again with honest and inclusive communication.

For her part, Erica Gilmore responded to my concerns 2 weeks ago:

As always, thanks for your email. I missed you at the meeting. The concerns that you expressed have been expressed by another neighbor or two so the point is well taken of not wanting to ruch [sic] any type of legislation. However, I did want to make you aware that Robin Zeigler at the Historic Commission is more than happy to discuss any questions or concerns that you may have as it relates to the Conservation overlay.

And I as always you can count on me to listen to what your concerns are. At this point, the bill has been filed, but it will probably not come up for first reading at the late February early March so there is plenty time to continue to discuss the concerns you have about the overlay.

I do not understand why the council member would push this ahead without making sure that community buy-in is firm on the front end. I agree with those who argue that it appears that a small number of people are determining this project. If that is true, then I expect what I have seen in the past: the potential for an overlay/rezoning issue to blow up at public hearing.