What do you call 100 developers at the bottom of the ocean?

Once again with the old bait-and-switch:

Developers promised something different. Residents thought they were getting a development that included buildings and a green area. Instead, they now live beside a dump.

"It's supposed to be a greenway, a little pond and trees and benches to sit on," said James Mullins.

He and others near the Antioch community feel deceived by what is on the 44 acre tract of land beside Mullins' home.

There are huge mounds of concrete and gravel.

Neighbors claim property owners are gaming the system.

"This is unacceptable," said Metro Councilwoman Karen Y. Johnson.

Johnson said she attended a public meeting last year in which developers promised to build homes, industrial properties and a green area with a pond.

"There was no talk in the meeting about the operation that is occurring there today," Johnson said as she looked over the site.

Unless developers are willing to put their promises in writing, always verify before you trust. Caveat emptor.

By the way this story included comments from the developer's engineer, Roy Dale, who has also been working with developers in Salemtown:

Now, tanker trucks can legally dump things like drilling fluid on the site.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked a spokesman for the owners when the recycling and dumping will stop on the property.

Roy Dale responded, "I don't know that I can answer that question."

Dale is the engineer and represents the owners in front of Metro Boards.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "Do the owners have a clear vision for what is going to be here?"

Dale responded, "I think yes. At the end of the day it's going be a commercial industrial site no doubt about it."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "Do they have a clear vision on a timetable?"

Dale responded, "Probably not."

He admitted the recycling facility is the main focus on the property right now, but insists he is trying to get the owners to start building what they originally promised soon.

"I think that's something they should do. And I think it's something that ya'll have probably helped to happen, and I think that's a good thing," Dale said.

We shall see whether this is savvy public relations or a good-will expectation of promises fulfilled.

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.

Exceptionally large, 20-unit Salemtown development deferred for community meeting

The "Specific Plan" rezoning requests are now flying into Salemtown, with new ones barreling down the pike persistently, enough to make your head spin. Most of the "SPs" propose to expand the number of units currently existing on the properties, which is consistent with the priorities of planners (who strive to increase density) and those of developers (who strive to wring out every last drop of value that they claim to add to properties). Former Metro Council member Roy Dale has been the applicant of a number of recent rezoning requests; a sweet parlay on his part.

One development about which I have waved red flags early on is "The Row at 6th & Garfield." The plan is to demolish 8 existing units across 5 plots and infill 20 new ones. The Salemtown neighborhood association informed me before the plan came before the Planning Commission on January 8 that the developers were seeking to defer in order to hold community meetings on the project. The association gives no public indication that I can see (I am a member) that they have concerns about the project. The Planning Department's recommendation reflects that deferral:

Project No. Zone Change 2015SP-001-001
Project Name The Row at 6th & Garfield

Requested by Dale and Associates, applicant; Bryan Development, LLC, owner.

Staff Reviewer Birkeland
Staff Recommendation Defer indefinitely.
_____________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUEST
Zone change to permit twenty multi-family units.

Preliminary SP
A request to rezone from One and Two-Family Residential (R6) to Specific Plan-Residential (SP-R) zoning for properties located at 1700, 1702, 1706, 1710 and 1712 6th Avenue North, at the northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Garfield Street, (1.01 acres), to permit up to 20 multifamily dwelling units

Existing Zoning
One and Two-Family Residential (R6) requires a minimum 6,000 square foot lot and is intended for single-family dwellings and duplexes at an overall density of 7.71 dwelling units per acre including 25 percent duplex lots. R6 would permit a maximum of 7 lots with 1 duplex lot for a total of 9 units.

Proposed Zoning
Specific Plan-Residential (SP-R) is a zoning district category that provides for additional flexibility of design, including the relationship of streets to buildings, to provide the ability to implement the specific details of the General Plan. This Specific Plan includes attached residential buildings.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends an indefinite deferral at the request of the applicant.

The Planning Commission did indeed approve the deferral two weeks ago.

This week the neighborhood association sent out announcement of its next business meeting, Monday, January 26 (6:00p). That agenda included the item, "Developer Presentations (30 min.) [held jointly with Councilperson Gilmore]." No other details were listed and there is no clarification announced by Salemtown Neighbors, but I assume that the SP request for The Row at 6th and Garfield is to be addressed. It is not easy to see where SNNA's executive board stands on this.

Chances are, if Roy Dale is present on Monday, he will also be discussing the SP request at 4th Av N and Garfield (2015SP-002-001) which was approved by the Planning Commission on the January 8 consent agenda without any discussion by the commissioners. Even with that approval I am unaware of any community meetings having been held on this plan by developers. It would demolish 6 units and build 8. But again, specific plans require allowance of community input before final approval. The public hearing has not been held by Metro Planning, yet so there is still time to slow this down if community discussion does not happen at the association meeting on Monday. I have received no notifications from CM Erica Gilmore about upcoming community meetings on rezoning. I certainly hope she is doing her due diligence on these rezoning requests.

Here is the planning staff's recommendation for the 4th and Garfield plan:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with conditions and disapproval without all conditions.

CONDITIONS

1. Uses within the SP shall be limited to a maximum of 8 residential units.
2. If a development standard, not including permitted uses, is absent from the SP plan and/or Council approval, the property shall be subject to the standards, regulations and requirements of the RM20-A zoning district as of the date of the applicable request or application. Uses are limited as described in the Council ordinance.
3. The final site plan shall include architectural elevations showing raised foundations of 18-36” for residential buildings.
4. A corrected copy of the preliminary SP plan incorporating the conditions of approval by Metro Council shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to or with final site plan application.
5. Minor modifications to the preliminary SP plan may be approved by the Planning Commission or its designee based upon final architectural, engineering or site design and actual site conditions. All modifications shall be consistent with the principles and further the objectives of the approved plan. Modifications shall not be permitted, except through an ordinance approved by Metro Council that increase the permitted density or floor area, add uses not otherwise permitted, eliminate specific conditions or requirements contained in the plan as adopted through this enacting ordinance, or add vehicular access points not currently present or approved.
6. The requirements of the Metro Fire Marshal’s Office for emergency vehicle access and adequate water supply for fire protection must be met prior to the issuance of any building permits.

Given the rapid transition Salemtown is currently experiencing, we really do have to keep our eye on the ball. The sheer volume of rezoning requests in a short period of time could tip it out-of-hand completely if we are not vigilant.


UPDATE: both properties did come up for discussion and questions at the January SNNA business meeting. Developers of The Row at 6th and Garfield said that they plan to defer the proposal to the end of February. They also emphasized to those in attendance that SNNA could have some influence over the direction of this project, which is a hopeful sign as long as the association officers encourage input from members. I will post more information on the site plan here soon.

Update on proposed 6th and Garfield development

Developer of the two lots on the southeast corner of 6th and Garfield, Robin York, and his engineer Roy Dale (also a former Metro Council member) met with 8-10 Salemtown association members on Friday evening, and the meeting was mostly surprises for me. Mr. York said that he wanted to hold the meeting after he learned of a "negative blog" about the development.

First, the email that was sent by the association last week announcing this meeting mistakenly reported that Mr. York was planning on building "Baltimore brownstones". The developer told us that he had no idea where this information came from. While he had thought about a "Cape Cod style" on the front, his plan for MUN rezoning was not restrictive enough for the Planning Department because it allowed commercial along with residential, so they want him to change to RM15 (medium-high density residential, intended for multi-family dwellings at 15 units per acre) or RM20 (medium-high density residential, intended for multi-family dwellings at 20 units per acre) rezoning. Consequently, he has no design, and any future designs are contingent on the rezoning.

Mr. York added that he was planning on using Hardy board siding, which is also not in keeping with a brownstone design (masonry). Another developer working on a new build at 5th and Coffee St. volunteered the information that the perception that Mr. York's development was going to be brownstone came from him, when he was thinking about building "Baltimore brownstones". Mr. York said he assumed that he had to use Hardy board because most of the the neighborhood was plank siding, and thus it would fit with the character. I responded that the community plan calls for a diversity of residential designs. Hence, I did not personally believe he was bound to only one type of siding.

Mr. York told us that he was new to the process and did not have a lot of answers. Consequently, he relied on Mr. Dale to do a good bit of of the talking with the group. Planning would require the townhouses to face both 6th and Garfield and Mr. Dale showed us a preliminary floor plan that would have a driveway to the back parking lot entering from 6th (the lots are blocked from customary alley access by another property). They intend to fit 5 2-story units and parking on a 130'x100' parcel (2 lots). The units would be priced to sell for around $200,000 each.

The owner of the properties was not present, but another association member criticized him for not taking care of his lot. She noted that the grass had been extremely high last summer. (Since the meeting another SNNA member commented on my Google+ stream that this corner is "a constant source of irritation" for her compared to how well the vacant lot right across 6th is maintained).

After the meeting, Mr. York approached me and expressed surprise at how involved our community was in the planning process. He told me that he had never seen such interest in developments as he has seen in Salemtown. I emphasized to him that we work hard with our council member and with Planning to come up with a community plan and that we prefer that developers strive to be consistent with the priorities put forth in the plan.

In sum, it looks like this situation is developing and unclear, and we should keep a close eye on what happens in the planning process as it moves toward consideration on February 23.

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.

Opportunity for Salemtown residents to influence three building plans tonight

According to Salemtown Neighbors president, Freddie O'Connell, tonight's association business meeting will entertain proposals from three developers on Specific Plan rezoning requests under consideration at the municipal level. Since all three seek Specific Plans, they are all required to incorporate community feedback consistent with neighborhood character into plans before getting final approval from Metro Council.

The first proposal is one that generated controversy and argument between SNNA and council member Erica Gilmore at the last association meeting. Members questioned whether CM Gilmore was interested in including Salemtown in on rezoning requests that affected them. CM Gilmore brashly questioned whether SNNA legitimately represented Salemtown. Of course, I felt compelled afterwards to rejoin Erica Gilmore, who seems blissfully unaware of her own contradictions.

That disputed proposal comes from Aerial Development who has their own track record of destabilizing neighborhoods. Aerial is lately being sued by a former partner for allegedly failing to share the profits for their projects on 5th Av., North. Aerial's proposal before SNNA is called "4th Avenue Cottages."

Aerial's plan.

Metro Planning's development tracker gives the full details:

A request for final site plan approval for property located within the Salemtown Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District at 1706 4th Avenue North, approximately 175 feet north of Garfield Street, zoned SP (0.40 acres), to permit six single-family detached units, requested by Civil Site Design Group, applicant; Aerial Investment Properties, LLC, owner.

Residents were particularly upset that CM Gilmore has spoken for Aerial on the cottages development without consulting them. They were also angry that Aerial pushed ahead without consideration for the conservation overlay passed recently. Metro Planning staff recommended approval of the development because it fits with their own higher density goals.

Are the 4th Avenue Cottages already on the market? (click-on to enlarge)

One would think that Aerial should be in full PR drive damage-control tonight if last month's meeting is any indication of popular dissatisfaction. Hopefully, they will be open to listening. The issue here is not that urban residents will not accept higher density, but that we do not appreciate being blind-sided on rezoning requests that should have had our input.

Another proposal under consideration tonight concerns properties about half-a-block south of the Aerial real estate. I have perceived no unpleasant, unnecessary drama about this proposal as yet, but little is known about it beyond what Metro Planning divulged to the community:

According to Metro Planning's development tracker, here are the complete details of the request to rezone on this property:

A request to rezone from CS to SP-R zoning for properties located at 1614 and 1616 4th Avenue North, approximately 115 feet south of Garfield Street,  (0.4 acres), to permit up to seven detached residential dwelling units, requested by Dale & Associates, applicant; T & J Holdings IV, LLC, owner.

I am curious to know why the developers are proposing seven instead of six homes across two properties. Are they trying to squeeze as many people as possible on real estate to maximize their profits or is this a reasonable request? Given what we learned about flooding along 4th Av in 2010, I'll be interested to see what their plans are for dealing with stormwater run-off.

There is no plan for 1614/16 4th Av. up yet on the Planning's website, which puts the neighborhood at a distinct disadvantage to developers as usual. But if you want a sample of real estate Dale & Associates (owner is former CM Roy Dale) develops, especially in Salemtown, I've blogged on several. Maybe we will learn a host of details tonight and the developers will express an openness to future meetings if needed.

I don't have any details on the third SP proposal to be considered tonight. Surprise, surprise.


UPDATE: Jump to my follow-up with clarification and correction of the information above.

Updates on cohousing and development

A couple of updates:

• A friend who has been involved in the Germantown cohousing project told me today that the meeting last week produced several resolutions, including building of a "common house" where residents can gather for meals, meetings, or entertainment and a community garden for the homes in the project at the corner of 5th Av N and Taylor St. The square footage of the two dozen multi-family structures will vary from 750 to 1,700. Cohousing intentionally includes home owners in the planning and design of their mutual community.
• Roy Dale, the engineer working with the developer of the project at 6th and Garfield, indicated to me by email 2 days ago that it may be 2 weeks before the high grass and brush can be cut at the rezoned property. Reportedly, it will be that long before developer Robin York can acquire the property and take responsibility for its upkeep. Dale also said he would ask York to make an attempt to convince the owner to mow and clean up the property. The current absentee owner is Ray C. Nathurst of Brentwood.

Planning Commission approves 6th & Garfield rezoning with other consent agenda proposals

I attended the Metro Planning Commission meeting earlier this evening. I was going to fill out one of the paper slips they ask those who are going to speak in the public hearing to fill out just in case I wanted to speak. When planners found out that I might speak against the rezoning, a couple of them seemed to take an interest in why I might try to have it pulled off the consent agenda (the agenda which allows the Commission to pass several items at once without discussion).

I talked about my concerns, particularly the one I spoke of earlier today that the addition of parallel parking on the driveway might make for the suburban appearance of cars parked in front of homes. The planners said that there is a buffer designed into the plan where builders can put trees and shrubs or a fence between the driveway and the adjoining property.

One of the planners also went into the meeting room and pulled out former CM and current developer Roy Dale to talk with me about their designs. He gave me the sketch above and told me that there would not be parallel parking along the driveway, and that all of the spaces would be marked behind the building. I told him that was my biggest concern at this stage and that I would not have it pulled from the consent agenda for public debate.

As you may be able to see from the sketch, the buildings look like they also have several square feet in front for plantings or small yards. That should mitigate the distance offset of the other homes on 6th. I told him that I thought that generally the rezoning is consistent with the both urban design and the community plan. I also expressed no opposition to higher density at the intersections.

I also learned that, after discussing whether or not to install decks in back of the homes, the developers are probably going to leave them off to allow buyers who want to have small gardens to do so. Mr. Dale also assured me that the development team will be having more community meetings to allow us to give feedback on design and materials. If they follow through on that promise, it will be above and beyond what they are required to do, but it would be a constructive gesture toward Salemtown.

Incidently, planners told me that someone else had called them this week with concerns about the impact of on-street parking after the build is finished.

With no one else present wanting to speak on the rezoning, the Planning Commission passed it unanimously on the consent agenda.

My Eyes Are Peeled on This One, Brainstem

My friend, Sean Braisted, beat me to this City Paper news that new at-Large Council Member Jerry Maynard is having a fundraiser with some very influential Nashvillians to help him pay off his campaign debt. Sean is much less cynical and much more charitable than I am and he suggests that we give Mr. Maynard a chance since this is not a big deal as Sean sees it. But he also calls upon us watchdogs to keep tabs on the situation.

I feel more like a hangdog right now: after seeing the news earlier on Karl Dean's post-election Joslin-connection, I'm plain disappointed that a second leader for whom I cast a vote in the run-off is getting all tied up with big-money company, which has a very keen interest in Metro Council decisions.

The company Mr. Maynard keeps may not lend to balance when decisions get made. Here is a list of the contributors that the City Paper names:

• Adam Dread--lawyer who helped Davidson Co. Republicans prop up Kay Brooks on the School Board
• Other lawyers: Keith Simmons, Bob Tuke, James Weaver
• Multiple lobbyists: Jane Alvis, Peter Heidenreich, Joe Hall, Abby Trotter
• Roy Dale--Dale and Associates Engineering and Architecture firm who designed the controversial water holding system for a Salemtown development
• Other developers and contractors: Bill Hostettler, Bill Knestrick
• Nashville Chamber of Commerce Chair Darrell Freeman
• Convention Center proponent Bert Mathews

We will have to keep an eye on Council proceedings and watch to see whether at-Large Member Maynard sponsors bills or votes in ways that could be a conflict of interest based on his pocketbook needs rather than the broader community's welfare. It's just a shame that the post-election honeymoon ended so quickly for me.

Salemtown developers allow nearly rezoned properties to blight

The rezoning request for Salemtown properties at 6th and Garfield, which generated sparks on the neighborhood elist a few weeks ago, breezed through a May 1 public hearing with no comment:

[CM Erica] Gilmore requested a hearing from the public on this bill which had been previously advertised. The President asked if anyone desired to be heard for or against the bill and no one came forward to be heard. The President declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Gilmore moved to pass the bill on second reading, which motion was seconded and adopted by a voice vote of the Council.

Without any further objections at the council's public hearing, passage on third reading is a done deal at this point. Even with the way cleared for Roy Dale and Robin York to realized their concept, the vacant property they will build on has deteriorated into an overgrown, vermin-infested, trash-catching, codes-violating mess. Here some photos I took of the southeast corner of 6th and Garfield yesterday:

I have listened to both developers and Salemtown's association president preach to neighbors that the way to clean up vacant lots is to give developers a free, unchecked hand to build. Well, these developers enjoyed objection-free public hearings both at the Planning Commission (which I attended) and the Metro Council (which I did not attend), and yet they still neglected their responsibilities to care for their property. It is now a health risk and quality-of-life nuisance for Salemtown.

Look at the photos and convince me that we are not supposed to question the quality of their product when it is eventually built. We're supposed to believe that they give a flying fling about Salemtown?

Public hearing on Salemtown development this evening at 4:00

I am still undecided as to whether I will speak for or against developer R. J. York's request to rezone properties at 6th Av N and Garfield street for higher density townhouses at this evening's Planning Commission public hearing. Unfortunately, the development team, which includes former council member Roy Dale, did not meet with the community but once. Even then they were nebulous about the site plan other than describing it in standard high-density terms.

One significant question for me arises from a Metro planner's conclusion that the request includes the removal of parking from lot frontages, which creates a more walkable neighborhood. The lot does not have access to the alley in the back, so the developers are proposing a driveway from the front. However, that driveway is wide enough to allow parallel parking, which seems to me to bring cars to the front. Here is how the planner responded yesterday when I asked about access:

a driveway from a street frontage will most likely be necessary to account for the lack of alley access. Any proposal for driveway and parking will have to meet the standards of the Zoning Code (chapter 17.20), which is administered by the Metro Codes Department. A driveway serving multiple dwelling units is normally 24 feet in width. Parallel parking on a driveway is one of the options offered by the Zoning Code for parking space orientation along a driveway.

Developers I've met generally (with a couple of exceptions) do not concern themselves with issues of walkability or pedestrian-friendly design. Instead, they are concerned with maximizing bodies and vehicles per square foot to get more bang for their buck. So, I do not expect to hear the development team address sustainable issues in parking this evening.

However, I am concerned that allowing parallel parking toward the front will have the same effect as having surburbia-style driveway placement. Is this not conflicting with the character of urban neighborhoods outlined in the North Nashville Community Plan?


UPDATE: Metro Planning's person working on this rezoning emailed me a few minutes ago with a response to my follow-up on my question about parallel parking in the proposed driveway:

For the site at 6th and Garfield, the RM20-A zoning district would not permit the placement of parking between a building façade and a street-side property line.

Note that in the satellite photo above the south side of the lot, where the driveway is set to be placed, will open up to the small front yard of the house next door. If the plan calls for the townhouses to have small front yards (unknown, but unlikely), and if those front yards are roughly the same size as the adjoining property (extremely unlikely), then parallel parking to the front of the building façade will not be seen from 6th across the adjoining front yard. Hence, the urban character will be assured.

However, if developers maximize square footage and put the townhouses against the 6th Av property line at the sidewalk, any vehicles parallel parked in the proposed driveway will give the lot the appearance from 6th Av of a suburban-style parking configuration. I guess if the developer plans a privacy fence against the adjoining lot, then the suburban-style problem would be solved.

PR Peas to the Mayor's Pod

Jeff Woods on the enmeshment of Karl Dean and McNeely, Pigott, and Fox:

MP&F snuggled up to Karl Dean during his election campaign. When it became apparent he would win, their flacks suddenly started appearing around the candidate, ingratiating themselves and offering unneeded advice. This MDHA contract was one of the firm's rewards. Dean should have told MP&F to take a hike when he had the chance.

The Mayor's office continues its slouch toward the bottom of the rankings of Metro's services for 2009.

MP&F was not the only private party to ingratiate itself to Karl Dean at the 2007 election. The City Paper printed a partial list of people who attended a reception to help Dean pay off his campaign debts:

Longtime Nashville businessman Bobby Joslin hosted a reception for new Mayor Karl Dean last Wednesday at his Joslin and Son Signs headquarters on Murfreesboro Pike. About 75-100 people showed .... [T]he party included former Metro Councilman Roy Dale, former at-large Councilman Adam Dread and his wife Kasey, lobbyist and public relations man Joe Hall, developer Bill Hostettler, restaurateur Mike Kelly, insurance executive Jack Spann. Waller Lansden attorney James Weaver, former Metro Councilman and Vice Mayor Jay West, land use litigation attorney Tom White and both Pete Dickson and Bobby Pitts of Associated Builders & Contractors were there.

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.