Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Welcome, everyone, to the, December 15th Design Review Committee meeting. The DRC is a subcommittee of the historic Zoning Commission. The meeting is informal and designed to guide applicants through the process of obtaining a Certificate of appropriateness, or CoA, for projects within the city's historic districts in light of the historic district design guidelines. Applicant participation in DRC meetings is voluntary but highly recommended, and changes made or suggestions taken by the applicant based on discussions with the DRC are the applicant's choice. But the DRC makes no representation as to whether any changes or suggestions made to. Zoning commission. We have six items on this afternoon's agenda. When the item is called, please introduce yourself and generally describe your item in about 2 to 3 minutes. First up, item number one discussion of front and side door replacements at 121 miles Manor Court Scot cash. Welcome. Hello. Going to get a mattress and just leave it in the corner. Yeah that's right. So. It's probably in 2007 or 8 before we moved in there. Kind of in our opinion distinctly non historic. And so we're just trying to get a gauge of what you guys would like to see on the house because we would like to replace them. So we've thrown just some different pictures in there, just different inspiration. They're all very different. We do have at the very end, the last picture, you'll see is on the new part of the house, and it's unfortunately it's 90 degrees off, but those are some some Dutch doors we had made for the that were approved. Doors that are on the rear of the house and the, you know, we could just get to two more. Two more of those made as well. But really, we're kind of open and,

like, many different kinds of doors. So curious what you guys would like to see. Okay, perfect. Let's hear from staff and, what they think about this, please. Thank you. And thank you for the applicant for returning to discuss alternative designs for the proposed replacement door on the front and side porch at 121 miles Manor Court. The included, proposed designs appear more appropriate and consistent with the Tudor Revival architectural style, and are, in line with the guidelines. Feedback on the design of the door for direction for the applicant is appreciated, as the guidelines recommend replacement doors be appropriate for the age and style of the building. And staff would like additional feedback on if a proposed Dutch door on the front and side door with higher visibility would be appropriate. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody want to jump in and make some comment here on this one? We don't have any, historic photos. We've looked we I have gone somewhere, but we moved out two years ago, and everything's in storage. I have scoured my files, and I have a CD-Rom. If I can even find a way to access it, that the. What's the owner who did the previous renovation gave me, after we bought the house. Okay, but I didn't I even. Those I'm not sure where the. Historic. Yeah, well, I do have a couple pictures somewhere of before they did the renovation, but they did. They kind of gutted it and rebuilt it, you know, a couple years before we bought it. So. Okay. Just another question. Which which door are you leaning toward? Did you say the Dutch? Well, no. Not necessarily. We really are wide open. We last at the HCC. The door we submitted wasn't even for us. Wasn't like, hey, we want to. Anyway, at this door, it was. It was more just to get the conversation going. What kind of door should we should we see? Because we we have a lot of strong opinions about different things. We're doing it with the House and deep in the interior of it. Right now, I'm making so many decisions. But as far as the doors are concerned, we're really

I mean, one thing we would like to see is a potentially a little less light just for privacy, because it's our side and our front door in our house, because it's on the corner, is exposed a lot to to traffic and all that. So, that those in particular for me, I would say probably have too little, too little glass for us. There, there. More constraining than we would want. But, you know, that one's a little bit wider. And then we do love the Dutch doors that are on the back of the house a lot. They're they're great and they're, you know, just solid wood, custom doors. And so we if, if that's something you guys like to we could easily go that route again. I mean they have a little bit less glass in the current doors to the current doors are probably two thirds glass. One third would and it just feels a little bit too much for our privacy. I was looking at the images and it was, you know, in, in, around Franklin, your specific kind of Tudor house oftentimes had a more solid front door with some type of little light or no light, and then generally that kind of porch door did have at least a little more glass. I, I would sort of lean in that direction, like, I don't think a, a Dutch door's necessarily a problem on the side, but only because it's already got some replacement. Now, if we knew it was there originally, I'd say go back with what we know was there, but I think that'd be fine on the front. It probably wouldn't be something that we commonly see on that style house. So if you would maybe want to do the front in more of a solid with some type of light pattern that that you wanted to propose, a smaller, we've seen some with some ironwork over them. You may or may not like that.

But the side being the one with a little more glass and a little more flexibility to me, even though it's a road frontage too, it's just not the very front door. So I don't I don't know how everybody else feels about that, but, You're for the front on your inspiration pictures, possibly something like number six, which just has a small window at the top. And then I think your side, you know, something like a Dutch door would work, but the ones you have on the back. Okay. Curious, would something. Well. I guess that first one for, the very first. So is that one because it's a lot less like than we currently have. And I know it's similar to the door, but just just because that front, our front door is not visible. I don't know if you guys. I don't know the. Officer. It's offset. You have to be at a very specific angle to even see it. So that said, we're we're losing light by the little porch that's there. They will lose, like, you know, so if we wanted to have more light, what would be an appropriate way to balance that? I'd want it to not have, you know, a little four by six. I don't feel just because it's been replaced already. I don't feel that strongly about either one. I think the that Victorian door that was in the last package didn't quite fit the style of the house, but I think, yeah. That was a. A half glass lighted like the one on the left. Could be fine as well. Just in, like I said, only because it's been replaced before. So it's, it's a variety that you already have. Except I think what you're proposing, there's probably

at least closer to being authentic. Kind of historically accurate look at door, Yeah. Okay, great. I'm going to try to get find a CD-Rom and see what we can these old pictures while I was also coming into number six because you said you wanted more of a storybook look. Yeah, I think we're trying to find the right balance between enough light that you get some light. And because that's our main foyer going into the house right there. So I'm trying to get enough light that you can see, you know, feel the presence of natural light, but then enough not so much that we have no privacy. So but I know what you're saying. So I mean, yeah, we do like that style right there. And could go that right. Okay. The comment that I would have is that, that most of the inspirational images that we see are not in Franklin. So if you would and there are there are plenty of Tudor style houses in Franklin that you could actually, you know, see what kind of doors they had. And I know that there are plenty that have a light pattern, that the whole thing is a light pattern, almost with multiple, mountains in between them. What you show, I guess this is on your image. This is, I guess, page. Well, it's one of the images that that I see, anyway, it has, like the I think it has a nine light pattern, but your windows have their six over six. Aren't they in the house? They are. So if you were to do something like that, you would need to reflect your light pattern for your window. I think also what you're saying the door that shows a little speaking is what I call a little speakeasy window, but it's not really a speakeasy. You can't open it up. You know, something like that would be appropriate. But on the side, It's kind of a toss between whether to do a Dutch door on the side or not. I think you probably could do a Dutch door on that side street,

but definitely not on the front as because that's not front of house. You usually don't see that. Sure. But I would recommend, you know, driving the streets of Franklin and looking at at Tudor style houses in the front doors. I did that a bit, and I saw a fair amount that do have something somewhat similar to the first one. You know, which is, which is what our Dutch doors are, it just doesn't have the, the, not that one. Sorry. The, the very top. This doesn't have the division of the Dutch door. So my comment would be the door that is up there now is usually considered the primary door rather than a sad door. Right. Yeah. Is it this door here? Yeah. That kind of door sort of saying if you wanted that variety on it, it would go on the front. You wouldn't put that on the side. Sure, sure. Definitely. But yeah, I think what we're hearing is, is there's a little bit of flexibility because you have kind of what we would consider non contributing doors. Right. But that you'd want to use a front door that resembles something that a Tudor and Franklin. And I think there's some examples of quite a few things. I mean there's quite a few examples in your like your little neighborhood there. There's quite a few Tudors. Thinking on Winslow. There's a couple. Couple. Yeah. So there's, there's, I know that there's almost a dead ringer for this house on, margin. Right. So there's, there's things to look at. But I think what you presented are some good options. I think what you're hearing is probably no to a Dutch door on the front. But open to some more than that glass. Probably. So, yeah. Anything else? Anybody? Yes, ma'am. Addresses. I found you my, Look at this gate on here.

Street at 810 West Main Street. Just for ideas. Yeah. Eight rating. Okay, great. Thank you guys. All right. Thank you very much Christmas. We do appreciate it. All right. Let's move to item number two discussion of signage at 434 Main Street. Holly Hayes, this is not Holly. No I know my wife is. Remind us your name, please. Again here in Bristow. Okay. If you want to give us a quick overview of where we left off. Yeah. Thank you. In four, three two and 434 Main Street. We on four, three, two. We have our apothecary and sleep store. And for three, four we have, jewelry, my wife's clothing, jewelry line. So four, three, four is sanctuary, which is her brand name and clothing and jewelry. 432 is awake and apothecary. So, two applications were for full three two and 434432. Awaken apothecary was for a chalkboard sign and two logos on the windows, and second logos of of awaken apothecary and for three four is for a, an A-frame sign outside and logo on the window either side of the door with the brand logo and the name sanctuary. Okay. Absorbing the pictures here. Yes. I put the directions on the sign. Okay, let's let's hear from staff. See what, comments they have for us. For four, three, four

and 4432 and 434 Main Street. Several new signs are proposed to be retroactively approved. We have received clarification from the building Neighborhood Services Department, and since there are two different addresses, each space can have three signs per the guidelines. Currently, there are awning signs above each tenant space. And here it is what it looks like just on Google, just so we can get an idea for that. And each space is proposing two window signs and a sandwich board sign in addition to the existing awning signs. Per the guidelines, each space is recommended to have three signs. Total information on the size of the windows that the signs have been applied to has not been provided for staff to provide an analysis. Additionally, if the vinyl has been adhered to the inside or the exterior of the glass as well. Additionally, the metal frame for the proposed sign does not appear to align with the guidelines for the colorway of the sign and for the material of the sign panel. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yourself. Then just just to be clear, so both suites have an awning sign. You said two window signs. One of them is on the big sheet of glass and the other one's on the door. So on each, tenant space, there is one on each side of the, glass of the entrance and, so here it is for the 432 and then for 34, they have this on either side.

And we went on an errand earlier this afternoon, and the signage does not appear to be on the glass, of this door. Yeah. That that's in there. Yeah. It's just a flipping. It's a flip side. Okay. So the, the there's two large sheets of glass on each side. Both of them have the same logo, decal. Okay. Understood. All right. Branch, you have something. I'm just clarifying there. Actually, two doors, aren't there aren't there two spaces? There are two doors. Put the the Google Earth back up two. Entrances into this this. Business. It's both those awnings there that say awaken and yeah, there's two there's a door on the left there and a door on the right. Yeah. That door used to be closed off. These be two rocking chairs that, the week now. Since then. Now two doors, two entrances, two different. Okay. I see the chairs. Okay. We would. We have been, talking in discussions with the owner of the building to try to get the awnings removed because we have no interest in having no awnings whatsoever. We would prefer that not to be that. There so far, reluctant to to allow us to move. So we don't really have control of those awnings at the moment. We would absolutely do love to get them removed. In, in so if they were to remove the awnings then they will be down to the three sides. Is that. Yes. Correct. And if the signage size and everything aligns with the guidelines, then these could then be administratively reviewed and issued. Administrative, Sue okay.

Yes. You might work with the building owner some more and see, because there have been times we've approved more than three signs. And anybody feel free to chime in here. But we have approved more. But generally we like to start people off at what the guidelines say, which is three per suite. And that includes your sandwich board sign. And then you know, staff had make comment that one of the sandwich board signs is black with white lettering, which does meet our guidelines. And the other one is white with dark lettering, which does not. I was not aware. Yeah. That was that was a guideline and my apologies. Yeah. And those, those seem like and then I think mentioned something about the metal frame. So that aluminum kind of metal finish. So per the guidelines, it does recommend utilizing, finish wood or metal, but it is specifically the sign panel. It does appear that, it is not either of those materials, but the frame does appear to be a finished metal. Okay, okay. So there's just, you know, alterations on that. And like I said, they may be able to staff approve it if the awnings go away. If not, you're gonna have to come back in, convince us to approve for signs or get rid of one of your signs of some sort. Anybody have any feedback on where you. Could keep the awning and just have them removed the the signage on it? I mean, that would be an option to if you wanted the awning. Right? We we did look at it. I didn't like we I mean we might have to put cover or something over it to remove the night. They didn't look like it would be. We'd probably go through the material if we tried to remove that design, but I appreciate that. Because I would think that the owner, the owner would either. I mean, they they let awakened Tennessee, you know, actually put the signage on. Yeah. So it means that they just it just be recovering the awning probably.

Yes. Yeah. There are about $2,000 in awning. When you looked into that, you're you're completely correct. I wasn't aware. I mean, the, the signage on the windows is to make a visible was compliance. And so if you're understanding that they are, they are applied, to the outside of the glass, and they are just stick on. So you go straight. And I think those does need to go inside. Right. Per the zoning ordinance and the design guidelines, they need. To go the on. The inside. Yes. Thank you. So that and then when you whether you administratively approve or not, we have these coverage rules. So we see how big it is, but it has to do with a percentage of how the, the sheet of glass it's sitting on. So you might provide the dimensions of the sheet of glass too. Okay. I would expect that one to be okay because it's relatively a 16 by 16. The window itself is five foot by four foot. I don't even remember what is the guideline on that. I believe it's 15%. Okay. Yeah. And unfortunately it's not all the see through stuff and the logo doesn't count. They're going to draw a square around the whole thing. Okay. Which it's the only fair way we can do it because we get a variety of logos. Right? So, just provide the, the sheet of glass. Yeah, pretty, pretty simple there. But, yeah, I, I'd keep working with staff a good bit on and and your owner, the building owner, to see if you can't fall within the guidelines. That be your easiest route forward. And then if not, and you need to come back to us, just be very clear on the dimensions and go through the guidelines really closely and make sure and and staff

will help you with that. Just making sure that you've answered every bit of information we need to make, make some type of call on that front. And you may know this, but if you Google City of Franklin historic guidelines, you can. It'll bring you up to a link that has to flipbook the flipbook of the guidelines. Okay. And you can search them. I mean, it's a it's a great resource and it might be something worth worth looking. Thank you. Yes, I will have a look at that. And I have not seen them. And mayor because of. Me I feel this is a situation that I don't know we've been in before where a store that is left. If I understand this right there, signage, signage will remain even though you've signed a new lease. So it isn't going to take us very long. With with companies that aren't there. There are no awnings or retaining signage and then new signage going up for a new business. Yeah. So that's we just haven't had a situation where of a new shop signed a lease with that situation in place. Sure. Usually the signage gets swapped. Out to at some point. Be addressed. Yes. Yeah. Understood. And one way to address that could be to, not approve anything but temporary signage until the others are removed. Because. I'm just not a fan of this idea. For the whole of the character of Main Street. Understood.

And I wanted. To ask, the Google show awakened on both of the canopies. Has it changed to sanctuary on one and awaken on the other? Yeah. That's right. So, for three, four, we've got sanctuary right now. And then four, three, two. Okay. I mean, it's awaken, apothecary. Wake, awaken. Tennessee is close enough to right to it, but as I said, I would love to we would love to remove the awnings completely. And then it becomes very clear we just need to amend the, the labeling on the, on the windows, the benefit, the design, the A-frame side. Was in I think our guidelines would, would be kind of in favor of removing the the canopies. Is that correct? They would I mean, there isn't a requirement to have an awning okay. Just an option. Yeah. So you might you might share that you know, it's within our guidelines to remove them. And that doesn't mean they have to be thrown in the garbage. The frames could be kept or something. I don't I don't know, that's, but that's like I said, that's the easiest way forward, certainly. Especially, you know, I think we're lucky here that the company has the same word in there. That's a second in the. New company's. Name. It's like, that's coincidental. Or maybe it's not, but that may not be the case. You know, if. Yeah, Mellow Mushroom moves, how long is that going to say Mellow Mushroom? It'd be something, you know, just making up a hypothetical. Yeah. Okay. Could I ask a quick question? Going back to the signage and percentage of the windows on the, on the sanctuary site, there's a name at the bottom. Kind of, I've got the image in the logo at the top.

It would be you can, would you draw two squares around each logo and come up with sensation? Would you cast it as one? To be consistent with what the zoning administrator has, done in the past, we draw one big. Square around. Everything. So even though there is space. Here in the middle that that would count, we would. Count this whole box. That would be the sign area. We wouldn't count just two separate boxes. You might you might think about consolidating, their up or consolidating down and coming. I think 15% probably be more than those two seem to have to get rid of one anyway. Fact that it's just interesting to make sure. All right. Anything else? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yeah. Okay. Item number three, discussion of partial demolition and new construction at 251 Second Avenue South, Brandon. Pretty. Or Aaron Rodgers, is that you? Aaron, you. All right, if you want to give us a quick overview. Yeah. So the last. DRC, we're, we listen to your comments and, made some modifications to the allegations. I know there was some concern about the windows styles and the transom located above. So we revised those, remove those, transom. Oh, sorry. The old. Apologize. Keep me there. So we looked at modifying those windows. So you'll see those in the updated elevations.

Another comment was in regards to the balconies. And there was some concern about, you know, potential visibility into the neighboring yard to the north on the north side, as well as the appropriateness of the Juliet balconies on the east side of the building. So we do have an updated, elevation sheet that addressed that. And we have removed those balconies for comment. And then another item that has been updated on this is the south margin elevation. There was some comment about the extent of the current gated metal and where the CMU that's currently existing, the extent of those areas. So we've, updated that elevation to show it more in alignment with what's existing currently on South Margin. And then another update was in regard to the elevator tower, that you can see in the background on that south margin elevation. And in our previous presentation, we had that designed to to replicate a cooling tower. And we took your comments to heart and we've, now gone back to more of a steel frame design. With it would have exposed steel structure with, corrugated metal to, to match that south margin elevation using that same material. Structure is. Thank you for the applicants for returning to another DRC to discuss the partial demolition, additions and alterations to the building at 251 Second Avenue South. The applicant has incorporated feedback and has made changes from the last DRC and meetings with staff. Model. Overall building form and massing remain. The same. Improvements have been made to the design of the elevator tower material detailed and information has been provided regarding the request for demolition.

We would like to commend the applicant as well for the diligent work with incorporating feedback from both staff and the Commission into applications and using a gentle approach. In proposing redevelopment on the site. The site is unique and offers a unique opportunity for an adaptive reuse, but does appear to propose alterations to the historic building to provide functionality for the proposed development, such as alterations to the openings and proposing new openings on highly visible facades. While there are some elements that do not meet the guidelines, the site is unique to the downtown district, as a factory isn't the type of building that is common in this area. Remaining the section that is proposed to be partially demolished and where new addition is proposed, preserves the orientation and placement of the original structure. The applicant is seeking demolition through criterion one. The loss of historical and architectural significance, as this section of the building has undergone changes and no longer retains its historic appearance, the existing style of the section of the building does not appear consistent with the style seen around the building, and not within the period of significance of the Downtown Historic District. The proposed stair, an elevator shaft, has been redesigned to reduce its massing and blends with the addition better feedback about the proposed alterations to the historic building and their appropriateness would be appreciated, as additional information has been provided regarding the details of the materials. Additional information or renderings have not been provided about the proposed trash enclosure. Trash enclosure at this time, however, feedback about the proposed placement would be appreciated on the site. An option with no balconies has been included within the application for review at this time. This option aligns with the guidelines, as there has not been balconies on the site historically that we are knowledgeable of. Feedback on the option without balconies versus balconies would benefit the applicant as well. The guidelines recommend that rooftop elements have the limited visible visibility from public view. The proposed railing will be visible, however, other elements along

South Martin Street appear to be setback and have limited visibility. Feedback on the railing and its visibility to minimize the impact is appreciated. And so as we move along with this application, we would like to make sure that there is a clear understanding that the commissioners understand what is being proposed. With openings and or what is being proposed to change. So, if there's any other additional documents that could be need to be requested in order to, completely understand the application, please let us know. And, discussion about with windows specifications, those have not been provided at this time. So in understanding material, finishing things like that, would be appreciated. And then feedback on the proposed new openings and altered openings on the historic facades would be appreciated. That is all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anybody want to jump in first? Lisa? Yeah. The, again, the context here really matters. And, the fact that the the balconies or the, I guess you call Juliet balconies on the east elevation, without those, it's much more appropriate for the context, from the context that we're looking at. I'll have more comments later. Okay? Okay. Thank you. Mary. I would say, I'm a big fan of getting rid of the balconies and, the building, to the right, the brick in the back, the feathers to way. Yes. From the icehouse. I think it could have, some more detailing, changes made to it to keep it from being such a formal looking building in this context.

That's one thing that when I just quickly look at it. Right. Could you, speak to that more. The, the way that the, ends of the building rises up above the roof is, a detailing, not get to the the rear building, the rear of. Yes. I mean, it's, it's making it look like a piece of the Masonic Hall or something. I think it just needs simplified. I think, the brick detailing on the corner with that scale gives it a formal look. And that's the part that actually has a gable look. I'm not against the gable. Just. Calming it down a bit. And it. I understand because I'm looking at the renditions I'm seeing. I see Juliet balconies, but they have been removed. Is that what I'm understanding? That is. Correct. Yes. That updated exhibit, and the third in the packet as those removed. So and it would like to say, you know, thank you for the updates. I mean the, the windows, I mean, they definitely remind you more of what was there with the Lilly mill and that brick building. And I think it does make a positive change. That's great. Thank you. Yeah. We tried to reflect directly back to the Lilly Mill photographs that we had to to update these windows. And I think the elevator is looks much better than I think it was circular. I think square rectangle squares looks much better. Draw less attention to that. Yeah.

And it looks more industrial. And Mr. Chair, before, you know came for approval to see it, this building more in the context of the houses on the sides would be helpful. You know, I think it's important to understand. I mean, obviously there's a property line, but where's the house beyond the property line? And what's that Delta look like? Because there's a there's, a mass and scale thing that happens depending on how far away that house is. And I think the same is true about the house behind, I guess, on the opposite side from South Margin. But you can sort of see it here, but it might be good to just rough it out with a silhouette, just you can see. Okay, we're building up a two story brick mass and is it 35ft from that house? Is it 50ft from the house? I think it makes a difference. Yeah. In the house next door on Second Avenue was a residential home and could be and kind of understanding how this building marries up with the backyard of that home. Sure. Yeah. I, The balconies are a bit of, an oddity on in the neighborhood, right? I mean, we've got the brownstones have some semblance of that, but specifically on this type of industrial building, it's kind of odd. But then when you take them off, I think it it does tend to look like a, brick kind of office building. Right. So if there's a way to put the additional detail into it, whether it's brick detailing or whatever it is to kind of bring it a pedestrian scale, actually, that elevation is, is

more intriguing than the side. The side without the balconies just becomes kind of a long expanse of fairly flat looking brick. So, trying to detail in a way that it's got, you know, that kind of we've talked about base, middle and top. And if it, windows or in these if you've done a good job on this gable end of having these recessed brick panels so that the windows look like they're kind of punched back, I think you could repeat some of that language on this set of eight pairs of windows here. And maybe make it look a little more one historic like it fits the neighborhood, but to it, it just takes on a more pedestrian scale. Doesn't look like a office building. Yeah. Right. And what what I'm seeing, of course, and this is very two dimensional are they're insets. You know, you've got that center section or something like three sections with it or part two parts, the a offset from the, from the front. Or is it just one big flat facade. Oh it's you're talking about the southernmost portion of that. It was on the the image that was just up that you had. Emily. So the l of the side elevation there, the furthest left. So so, Brian, that is in one plane, just delineated with pilasters. So there's some subtle, brick. Depth to those. But, it is just due to the nature of those being unit room, hotel rooms. Pull up that bench. Tend to articulate too much there. But we could look at, you know, possibly accentuating that. That's the best depth kind of perception we get now. The windows aren't the same, but that's, I think some of that pilasters and things like that could go a long way.

It does break in the corners a little bit into pieces. And you've got you've got some. I think you got to take it another step further. And I think you did it on that gable. I know you've changed to brick and the panels, which is a good thing, I think. But I think you could repeat some of those details on this southern most mass and it it would make it just feel like it's got enough kind of, delicacy and scale that it fits the rest, because the whole, the whole site's kind of quirky and it's all about all these. It's like being at the factory. There's all kinds of funny little pipes and things hanging off of it. That's why we love it. I think this is just the two sterile and it's state that it's in here, if that's a good way to put it that right. But I do see what, what what they've done here or what you've done here I think is, is very much in line with, with getting to that place. So and staff mentioned the dumpsters. So if they could bring up the site plan, I'm assuming that, you know, there's they're already dumpsters for this, this building I don't know. Do you know where they're located? I believe I'd have to defer to Troy, but I think in Vermont they're in the back of the, the what's going to be the new parking in that upper northeast corner of the property now. And I believe you can see those on Street View if, zoom in on that. Yeah, just in the back against the fence. And is that where you you proposed the. We're working with our civil engineer right now. At one point, we were possibly thinking of reusing, the shed building that exists, but I think for functionality, it's probably going to end up being where Tilers or, where that's being whoever circulating. Sorry. Right there. And at the end of the drive, I'll. And is there going to be

fencing or goes round the side. Those will be screened or the dumpster will match, the esthetic of the building and will follow any screening requirements to. But yeah, it's got about new fence around the site. Go back to the former picture. Okay. So this would place the dumpsters very close to the Raney house, am I is that right? Yeah. That's right. That's it. Yeah, I, I think I would love to see, you know, some more thinking about where those go. And it it we we're still in the process of trying to do that. And so we're we're sensitive to that. And we'll make sure that that it's, it's put. In Mr. chair I don't know. What the city guidelines require, but. More height coming to the site. I would like to look at some type of screening, for if it comes up against other, Yeah, I guess that's dwellings. The planning, zoning books that would do that. We don't review that necessarily. Right. Are you talking about, Well, when you're. Planting looked. At that one picture and you were looking into several backyards and we're coming up with height.

It changes. Sure. The ability to be in your backyard without, you know, having people looking down. You know, I guess in in. You're right. I feel I always feel differently if it's like, well, somebody's building another private home next to you, and they may see in your backyard a little more as a new house or in addition. But this is a commercial building. So we, you know, have to be considerate there. And it looks like you've got some planting planned there. But again, we don't necessarily review that, but we do review how hard things are. We do and how they look down, how they are perceived in another property. Yeah. And also this will. Be not only an Am property, it'll be a Am and PM property. And so a lot of things will be happening at night right. And I may be early, am I right? Yeah. Depending. I am encouraged that the rooftop deck is as far away from residential as it can go, so I guess that's good. But, you know, the the balconies coming off, I guess that helps. They're not be, whatever parties happening inside isn't happening outside necessarily. But, you keep I would keep thinking through some of those and make sure you've got some kind of clear plans on how to address some of those issues. And, Mr. Chair, we've asked other applicants to show how the rooftop would be perceived from other properties. So additional views. Show. And yes, I mean, that something

that the architect can do with the software there is today. Yeah, it looks like you've got it in 3D already. So it'd be helpful to see some of those things. Just so we know what we're looking at, whether flattering for you or not, we still want to see them. Yeah. And so when you say additional views from, from the adjacent properties kind of thing to see. Yeah. To what extent of the patio. Right. You would see. Okay. I did have a question. Did you have any comment on the extent of the proposed demo and, and what we're proposing in those two areas as far as the jujitsu and the Overbuild, we just want to make sure that's acceptable. I didn't necessarily did you all have anything on the the demo specifically? I think we've heard feedback from most people that that building has been modeled with a lot. Has a lot of modern elements that have been kind of appended to it over the years. So, I haven't heard any issue with that. The Overbuild is, you know, it's funny, there's there's some removal and then some sort of additions up on the roof. So you've got the over overbuilt part that's currently there. It's coming off and correct me if I'm wrong. And then that's creating the space for this kind of rooftop deck facing South Margin. And then you're adding this stair elevator tower component. So. I think you heard some feedback on the the stair tower elevator. I still wish there were a better place for it, but I understand why it's centrally located. I do like it better when it's not round. I think the round was a nice nod to a cooling tower

for an ice house, because that does exist in other places. But it also drew attention to itself because it's the only round thing there. So, downplaying it is in, in, in my opinion, probably the right thing to do. Is there any feedback about the new proposed openings along South Margin Street? Well, I wrote that down. So you had the openings and also the materials, you know, windows, I think you heard a little bit from the from the windows from Brian. But anything on the. So I think what staff's mentioning is this elevation that's on the screen, the upper section where the corrugated metal is, there's there's no windows there now. So they're proposing adding three of a similar variety there. And I assume you're replacing the other two. Are you keeping those. To we'll have to evaluate. Okay. The extent to which we could keep those based on their current condition, I yeah. Last I saw them, they were. I'm thinking, well rough shape end up replacing those. Okay. And that's the kind of detail we will need very specifically because we generally don't go, well yeah, we'll approve this and let you figure it out later. We kind of want to know. Yeah. Do the evaluation of the windows now and let us know what shape they're in and then what the plan is. And that's I think that's fair. Especially if the plan is to make some more of that thing, then we need to know what that thing is. And, Mr. Chair, what sort? I know we can't count on this, but I gotta ask it. What sort of business will be for you? Had the rooftop garden. That will be an amenity for the boutique hotel. And so there will be a private

patio, that opens up on this side. And then the interior patio will be for all guests, and, but it does have the ability to open up. So it could be if there's a need that can connect through to both patios. But but really, the one that you see on the south margin side there would serve, specialized unit, that is a little bit larger. So at least in our current plan. Okay. Any any reaction to punching new holes in that front facade? I know that's what staff was wanting us to comment on. Lisa, I. Think I think you made a good point, Tyler, that we kind of need to see the the openings that are there and the windows that are there. Is that going to be something that you can repair and put back in or not? Because if you can repair them and use them, then your new openings are not going to be consistent with the old openings, which makes it a tricky situation, I know, but still, in order for all of those openings to be consistent, you're they're going to require new windows. And one of the things we've always paid attention to is whether the original windows are workable or not. You know. All right. Well, let's speak some of that. So originally we're the building. You're saying that's now with the corrugated metal was the David Farr Mill. So it was a mill. And I mean, it didn't have those openings that I remember, you know, from photographs of that. It was whenever this became the Dixie

chicken processing plant that those windows were added. That was done in the 50s. So, you know, new openings were added and things were changed. And, you know, we're talking now about adaptive reuse. So, you know, in a certain sense that was in my mind, too, about, you know, how this this now functions with this new use of being a hotel and new openings. Yeah. So I mean, I would lean towards that. What you see is more balance and harmony and what they're presenting and what we see from the past. So I mean, I don't I'm not opposed to those new openings that they're, that they're proposing. Yeah. I, I tend to agree with you, Brian, that we've, similar to the factory. It's like we allowed some new openings because it made the space functional. And without it, if we don't ever let anybody do anything to this building, then they can't use it. Then it rots more. So I would, I would think as long as they're planned. Well, and to Lisa's point, you know, we've got to be really careful about how that's done. So if you end up reusing those windows, you may have to get some replicated that are as close as you can possibly get, which is usually not the most economic version, but it's the right thing to do. And if they're not usable, then we need to see what what they are going to be, what's proposed to go back. But I have lots of questions about, you know, the skin of these buildings. I mean, can you make a waterproof facade with what's sitting there or some of that metal getting ripped? I mean, there's so many questions that we really need to know the extent and scope of the work before we can really evaluate it. Otherwise, we're just leaving too much up

to, well, the builder has to figure it out when we get there. It's like, well, that's that's usually not good policy for us. So the, the most kind of research you all can do and kind of investigative ahead of time to know exactly what needs to come off, what's worth reusing, what's not. That that would be super helpful. Okay. Anything else? Anything else you want us to talk about? Oh, I wrote down I said it materials. Make sure you're we talked about windows at nauseum. Now but brick and mortar it's going to be a huge thing on this because we have a historic brick building. I'm not necessarily advocating for matching that. But it all has to jive together. So if you would bring us a sample when you're ready for an approval, that would be an important component. And signage. We've learned in the past that if you don't attack the signage now, actually the property owner ends up in the most trouble because, things get put where they want. Signage and they can't put the signage. Right. So I think we need at least an attempt at what you think about for signage. Okay. And you might go back and look at proposals from other applicants who have tenant space and they don't even know who the tenants are yet, but they put together a signage package that says, here's the location and the style of sign. We don't know what their logo is yet, but it will fit in this vicinity. Those are important things for us to review as well. And one other question and email, if you could bring it up, what we've just looking at that south margin side that showed the what's currently there and then what's being proposed.

So I mean that actually shows the rendering. And then show the hotel part okay. And zoom in on the what would be the far right side. Am I seeing the little white squares or rectangles. Is that like electrical? But Those are proposed location for the, electrical meters. And we just have those in the rendering. So we think that that's probably the best location just based on where the pole mounted transformer currently is. So that's that's the thought right now. And I wanted to bring that up because our guidelines would require those would be shield shielded in some way. Yeah. And we can we can update this to show those screened. And that would be our intent. There okay as well. Just wanted to bring that up. Thank you. So you didn't have a surprise again. Okay. I guess with all the I mean it's going to be mechanicals and all kinds of things for this building that we haven't seen where they go yet. So that but that level of detail is expected. Okay. When we're ready. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yeah. All right. Item number four discussion or new construction at 110 Alders Gateway. John Gore. Hello. Good afternoon. We appreciate you guys time today. This project is for Williamson County. This project is a new EMS station. It is on the campus that houses the, first Franklin United Methodist Church. So it's about 104 acre, campus that's fronted, on Mack Hatcher Boulevard on the north. And, an agreement has been worked out between Williamson County and the church

to, have a land lease for a part of the very northwestern quadrant. You see, there's an existing road that comes off of Mac Hatcher with a cul de sac. And this would be a, again, a facility for mostly for ambulances to be stationed at. And, this this property is also within a pause. So we had gone through an exercise with planning, last year to go through and have the PUD amended. And we are needing to, to come see historic and talk about the building. We had a pre-application meeting with Emily, and we talked a little bit about the site plan. The previous version we had, the building was rotated about 45 degrees clockwise. We did get a comment from, historic staff to go ahead and rotate the building so that the front of the building is, facing kind of the entry a little bit more. So that's some of the recent changes we've had to the, site plan, but I'm, joined by Lacy Fuller with TMP partners, and we have, actually two options on the building elevations. And I think, Lacy wanted to talk through, with the group, some of the differences in the building elevations that they've been studying and get some input. So is this the site plan? This is the rotated version? Yes. Okay. All right. Hi. And then just for the elevations, obviously, our primary goal is to complement the existing church building. So we're picking similar materials, similar distribution of materials. You'll see the front entry arch. We are looking at two options right now for the design, that the county and the church have both seen thus far. This first one, it'll really just be that top elevation, which is going to be the one fronting, the primary entry. You'll see it just it's we're just looking at those red doors for the for the vehicles, the apparatus, bay doors. So in this option, they're just more traditionally squared off with, with a cast stone header. And then if you'll flip to the next one for me, thank you.

And then this one, they just have, a cast stone arch, to just kind of further callback to the existing church. And so I think my primary goal, both are very similar, and all the PUD requirements, percentages of materials, and improved materials and things like that, every other elevation on each is the same. So it's really just initial feedback to kind of help us, decide which one to submit or move forward with. Okay. Perfect. So thank you very much. Let's hear from, Emily with some staff comments. Please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The property at 110 Aldersgate Way is located within the Franklin Road Historic District. The proposed civic building will face the roundabout coming from Mac Hatcher into the side. The building has Romanesque Revival inspired elements on the proposed building, which relates to the adjacent Franklin First United Methodist Church. The proposed placement and orientation building form, hi materials, details and ornamentation, and entrances generally meet the guidelines. Additional information will be needed on the size, material and specification of the windows and doors. Option one on the screen appears to balance the design of, and the detailing of the church on the property well, without having too many imitating elements. And there are two project considerations that we will provide to the applicant with the DRC. Recap. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Bob, any thoughts? I think page two, is more successful. I think the door frame gives a nod to the church. I think your second one looks like an annex, so I would go with the one that just gives a little nod yes to the church next door.

Perfect. Thank you. Brian, anything? Yeah, I think I think you've done a good job. I think it looks good. Option one. That's how I understand it. With the with the large lintel at the top. If we're choosing between these two, that would be my preference for that. It's meeting the guidelines. But I would like to throw something out. And that is that it's not the church. You know, maybe the architecture is too much like the church. And when I when I look at the site plan and then I look at a Google Maps exactly where this is located, it's pretty far away from the actual main, main church part portion, and very close to the large barn that was there. And the giving garden. So to me, it it almost, you know, I'm wondering what it would look like if it were something that related more to a farm. Farm type buildings or, you know, something that blended in with that part of the property rather than the actual church. Right? So, I mean, just just throwing that out for discussion. And, Mr. Chair, what Brian said is exactly what I was thinking, that rather than have it look like a baby church, go with something more agrarian. Okay? Okay. Lisa. Any thoughts? Just that, the the what is it? Plan one? Is the preferred of, two, but, that's an interesting observation regarding the fact that you this it's it's not visible from the street. It's not right near the church. It's it's a it's a firehouse. You know, it has to has to have a function. And if there is any way to to do something

that is in, in within the context of a farm, perspective, that would be that would be pretty cool. We can look into it. Definitely. I will say we are in partnership with the church, just to get this project moving along. So we, we do want to be cognizant to their board of trustees and just kind of make everyone happy. I will also say that with the central facilities, there's just some reinforcement required that CMU and brick seem to help, us achieve the most efficiently. But but I do know what you're saying, especially as you're driving and you kind of see that giving garden immediately in the church is much further down the, down the way. So we can look into that for sure. Again, I like the the first proposal. Thank you. Mr. Chair, also, have you all looked at the West Haven? Fire hall? Not well, it is more of a calm down. But, brick, I think the church site would be more interesting with the variation personally, but if, they're really pushing and I, I would say might be worth looking at. West Haven. Okay. Perfect. Not the Tower Park. Yes. Brian, did you have some more. Complicated since you said. Sure, at Google Maps. Could you bring up this site for an aerial view for Google Maps just to show the context of where this altar skate. You know, cul de sac is our circle. And then where the church. So kind of where the mouse is, that's where the church is.

And then kind of where the mouse is there that is, proposed to be once this loads, that is the turn in from Matt Catcher. And so it'll be placed just right off this little cul de sac kind of turnaround area. And then that red roof there, that's actually there, the giving garden or the giving farm part. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I tend to agree with, the, the idea that it's borrowed a lot of elements from the church. And it's all the step parapet stuff, all that, you know, there's a lot of different ways the formally speaking with the two bays and you kind of got, broke into two pieces. I think that makes total sense. But all that could work with a flat roof. It could work with just a plain pitched roof with an overhang and feel a little more agrarian. Pretty quickly. Or at least a, not so copycat ish of the church. And I understand that the church may go, this is what we want. It's our on our property. So in tough spot there. When I see these kind of arched openings, it always come spooks me a little bit because I know how difficult it is to get, like, windows that look decent and something like that. You know, so if you do like that whole ensemble there out of aluminum storefront, it just kind of looks like something in Coal Springs. You know, it's not not a historic kind of feel, but there are people who make high quality kind of arched ensemble like that. But it's not the budget edition, obviously.

The other thing is, you know, I love all the the stone detailing, is great. I do have some concerns about the cast stone instead of real like cut Indiana limestone. I don't know that we've if we approved cast stone on especially on civic buildings. It's one thing for somebody's backyard or something, but, on the front facades, I'm not sure that even our guidelines recommend that. I may have to ask staff about, cast stone. Is it one of our accepted products? For civic buildings, it does recommend utilizing stone or brick, and so we'd have to double check. Yeah. Cast stone is not stone. It's. It's dust and resin. And in the. Trash. And it might have been the Harpeth Hotel. I mean, they came before us because their cast stone was falling. Off of the building. Off the building? Yeah. Which, I don't blame that on the material itself. That's an installation thing or something, you know, but we generally don't allow cast stone. And I would even say for civic buildings, it's even more important because they are, you know, the nature of a civic building. You know, it's it's got to be more timeless material. So, I would look at some of those things. The roof forms, the parapet shapes, the windows, we don't really know exactly what they are. I'm looking at your keynotes. Here are the aluminum storefront. That front entry is under the arch. The rest of them are, fiberglass, like a pillar. And they have to be operational. So they're just, Yeah. Fiberglass. Okay. And I'm not sure even fiberglass windows are even allowed in our guidelines. Are they?

I think they have to be wood or composite and or metal. You were allowed to have metal windows in civic and commercial. I believe it is. To match the historic materials traditionally found on historic civic buildings. But composite materials that have the appearance of wood are appropriate for windows, and all the components. Yeah. So we'd want to see, you know, you might get from Pella, the profile sections and all that because we we look at those pretty closely to see if you know what the styles and rails are and all that. That sounds nitpicky, but it makes a big difference. Thank you. Anything else? Anybody? I think, Brian, you said most of what I think most of us were thinking, so I think it's it's funny, if the church wasn't there, I'd go, this is this is charming. I love these little step parapets, but I'm like, it's it's right. It's over there. But it's far enough away that it's like, I'm not sure it ought to be that closely related, but it's close enough that, you know, they want it related. So I get I get that, but I look closer at materiality when it comes to windows Stone. You know, we really do want to see probably the exact brick. So if you when, if and when you come for a certificate of appropriateness, bring it with you. Okay. Anything else? Brian asked staff a quick question. So is this a courtesy review or is this actually in the historic overlay preservation overlay? It is in the historic preservation overlay. Okay. Just right on the edge. Just wanted to confirm that. Yep. Thank you. Living on the edge. Did you have something, Lisa? Anything else? Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thanks. Item number five.

Excuse me. Discussion of alterations. And in addition, at 1309 Adam Street, Benjamin McCreary. Welcome, sir. Hello. Good to see you guys again. I see you. Okay, so brief context. Adam Street Historic District. This project is kind of right in the middle of that. And it's a unique historic district because along Adams Street, there's this mix of all these new homes that have been created from where? And the other properties were not in the historic district, but they're right above it and they're kind of like split or all around this thing. So, that's the context, right? We've got historic homes and then these big, newer homes around it. The property in question for us is 1309. And of course, that is, one of the few that's still remaining. And so it is also adjacent to another property that's just been renovated. So we're going to use that as some kind of talking points. But overall, very excited about the project as far as what it is, we recognize the historic significance of the property itself. The character of its massing in relation to the street, to context. This project appears to have been originally constructed sometime in the early 1900s, with some additions in the 1930s. Sometime after 1940, the front porch was enclosed as you and you'll see that. And there's a kind of a odd front porch that's been added in its place. So what we are proposing and really unfortunately, this you guys have seen this project before, several years ago, where it was requested for a demolition to build something completely new. We are not coming to do that. But we are acknowledging that there is a lot of, deterioration in the house and a lot of things that make it difficult

to do a complete kind of full restoration that we would want to do. What we can tell from the inside is that most of the floor system is gone. The original fireplaces are gone. Most of the interior structure has termite damage. There's no crawlspace to floor joists that are existing or on the wood floors. Foundation is crumbling because most of it is rubble. So there's significant work that needs to be done to kind of make this a house that can continue to contribute to the area and be utilized for years to come, and kind of maintain that historic character that was there. So what we are proposing is kind of a an extensive renovation in which we, maintain kind of the front that the things that we know were historic. So we're going to take the front porch back to the original shape and the original recessed that's not currently there. And then we also would like to maintain the front gable the way it is. As far as its massing and shape it, we can see some of the historic gable ends, the rafter tails that were there. Some of them were even kind of covered up where we could see the old front porch was sitting below the rafter tails from the front gable. At one point. So that's kind of we're using that context to put the front porch back. And also, I think there was some mention of the three little rafter tails on the front gable would have been consistent with some decorative detailing that may have been up in that front gable. We're working with the owner and the contractor that's potentially working on this to kind of see if we can remove some of the vinyl siding that's cladding the building right now to see what, if anything, is left from the original front gable. Unfortunately, we can't see kind of you can see in this middle photo up here with the Hvac hanging down. That is the backside of the front gable. And we can see up there that it looks like there's OSB sheathing and newer two by fours. So it doesn't look like we're not hopeful that there is much left of that front and gable. At some point

it must have been so deteriorated someone rebuilt it with modern materials. But we'll we'll see once we get the vinyl off. But regardless, the front windows are historic, and we went. We're planning to maintain those and put them back and even take the one that's in that kind of odd bump out that they've done at the front porch, and put it back in place along the front wall, where most likely would have been historically. But for the most part, we're going to have to, kind of take down a lot of the walls and rebuild them to to bring the building back. There's just not enough to save or the and we're working on a cost analysis. I know that's part of this to kind of talk about that. But again, we're not asking for demolition. But a lot of things will have to be disassembled and put back. But the intent is to maintain the historic look of the property. And you'll see that in the images. Really. We've we've kind of kept it. We're building it back. Exactly. Kind of proportions and massing is the way it was before. We're asking for currently, the building is to let me get to my sheet here. Currently the footprint is 2234. And we are asking for 900 additional square feet. I think, 922ft². So we're asking 1200, 1230 eight square feet, which is 55% of the existing footprint. We are aware that that is more than the 50% that is in the historic guidelines. But I would like to point out that the house next door that just was completed got 54.35%, of an addition. We are also only even with this addition, we would be covering 10% of the lot. So it is a very large lot. It's 44 or 40,000ft². So currently, you know, it's 8.5%. It's all it's covering right now.

So that is kind of the look we're I think I'll let staff go through it, and then you guys can ask me questions about the property. Thank you. Steph. Thank you. So this is a request today to discuss, at 1309 Adam Street consists of a partial demolition. Renovation and additions. This request includes a proposal to partially demolish the front left corner of the building to reconstruct a front porch. Staff has not seen the Sanborn map of this property. That would support the removal of the building and reconstruction of the front porch. Images have been included that may support the that the front porch was enclosed, at some point, including exposed rafters on the interior of the building, through some into your interior exploratory work. A 1238 square foot addition is proposed to the existing 2234 square foot building that is noted as being all historic footprint. The additions are noted as being circa 1930s. The proposed addition is 55% of the footprint and exceeds the recommended size. Guidelines for additions to historic buildings. Staff is unclear of the request. And scope of work. According to sheet nine, as it notes, only the front gable is to remain and one window is to be preserved and reused elsewhere. But in not sure where that is going, additional information and clarification is needed from the applicant to clarify the scope of work and the method of renovation as materials are not detailed in the application either. Additional information that is needed to understand the proposed materials and how they align with the guidelines. The existing reform and pitch have not been included for a review to ensure that the new proposed roof pitches are consistent with what is existing on the historic building. The proposed reforms and pitches on the additions appear to create a more complex form. A dormer like pop up is proposed on the left elevation. The visibility of this element is unknown. From Street View, additional renderings may be needed to review the visibility. The slope of the dormer element is two over 12, and it is unclear

the measurement from the exterior walls and sidewalls, as it is recommended that 30in from the exterior wall on the side view open, the overall height of the addition appears to be subordinate to the historic building, but dimensions were not provided and certain offsets are proposed within the form of the addition. However, feedback about whether the addition is compatible and clearly identifiable would be appreciated. The guidelines recommend to maintain the historic building shape, mass, scale, proportion, rhythm and roof shapes as to preserve the historic building elements that contribute to the building style and historic character. While it is unclear what scope of renovation and rehabilitation work may entail, it appears that the historic form is maintained. However, additional information is needed to review the work within the guidelines. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mary, would you like to go first? Thank you. I would support going over 5% given the size of the lot. And I think this is going to be a labor of love given the, extent of the deterioration of this. And, for that reason, I feel that, a little forgiveness is warranted. So. Okay. Thank you. Lisa. Yes. I was also turning toward the 55% of the. 4% allow for for their additional fee. It'll be interesting to see what might be so soft to call them, Signing, and, if anything. But you did mention rescuing the.

Windows to people's space. Is that right? And, looking. Out for you. Thank you. Also, I see from the renderings that you've added a chimney. Is that consistent with our guidelines? So chimneys are allowed on additions as long as they're subordinate and, size and form and massing to the historic chimney on the building. And also in the district. But that the the chimney in the historic part of the house, that is a new chimney. Those are all gone now. The chimney is still there. It just it's smaller now, you know, it's made of masonry. So we're proposing to come back with the chimney in the same location. We'll we'll just need to make it a little larger. Is the proposal to use modern chimney flue okay. But it's in the same from the front of the house. It will look the same as far as size. And sitting behind the gable where it currently sits. Okay. And regarding the chimney, especially in the new in this post on a style on a house, this this vintage and this age, I would recommend an interior chimney rather than the exterior chimney because you usually just didn't see them. If you were creating the the history that the older part in the back was older and been built on the front. So then you could we'd say, hey, that that's how it was, but then we'd create a false sense of history. So I'd recommend an interior chimney for that. Okay. Another comment I would have is on your front door in the renderings, I don't see a transom. And what are the height of your ceilings? They're 10ft. Or 10ft. More than likely you'd have had a transom. There was no air conditioning when this house was built.

That was the form of air conditioning. Right. And I think we we just unfortunately the rendering doesn't show that well. But yes, I would agree. Well, I mean all your other detailing is right. I mean you've done a great job on that. Even to this, this I always called it a 45 degree hip that came on the end of porches. You've got a degree coming off of that rather than being straight out, which I think you also seen, and your rafter tails that are decorative. I mean, I've seen really basically two styles in Franklin for this period house and even a little earlier. And so there are plenty of examples of what to replicate if you can't find them. And I'm assuming that the, the on the back porch that we're seeing is that enclosed or is that just an open back porch. The one that we proposed. The ones being proposed. It would be a screened porch. And that's included in your your square footage that gets that 5% over. Correct. I think that that pulls it down. I think this is an exciting project. I think it can be a very good example of saving a historic structure and, and what you're proposing to do with it. Green Barber anything. I agree with all the what the commissioners. Other ones have. Saying. I agree as well. I think to staff in the communities probably concern of you know, we see this demo plan and everything's dashed right. You might add some exhibits there. Sure. And even if it's just an annotated list, kind of sequence wise, like, well, we're going to remove and retain these, all these windows and where exactly if they're going to go back, if you're planning on using them, and you've got kind of a generic

shoring detail in here, it's just kind of straight shoring stuff, but it's not specific to the house. And not that you need to go through the trouble of necessarily putting a very detailed shoring plan together. But to to say in your drawings, hey, we're going to shore up what's here, and here's what we're going to try to explore as we go through the demo process. Because some of it is a let's open this up and see what's what can be saved. And it should be noted here on what that is. Well, first thing we're going to take vinyl off. There's any siding that can be retained. Well if you're going to take the wall down because the wall needs rebuilt, well you can't just leave it. The siding will have to actually come off. So I think in this particular scenario, like you said, there's going to be a lot of taking individual pieces off, but there has to be some type of plan that we feel comfortable approving so that us and the community all knows, like when they see almost every wall gone, that yes, it is gone, but it's coming back. That was necessary for getting it structurally substantial enough that it will stand up. So, I'd say just expound on this demo plan a bit, just so that there's some documentation of we're not just saying, right, go for it. Hope you figure it out. You know, that's that's not a good idea. Sure. And to piggyback off of that so so all the while showing some demolition to them. I'm just I'm assuming from what I see, all the seals have to be replaced. Because I'm sure they are. They are termite damaged or rotten dry rot. Right. Post beetle whatever. But all the studs within the houses, too, I mean, they're they're completely gone. Not all of them. There is termite damage on most of them up five feet high.

So we've only seen the inside of some of the interior walls. And that's where we've already noticed termite damage. And based on what the sills look like around the perimeter, we're just not optimistic that they're in great shape. But we don't know at this point. Yeah, I would assume that on the Seals. Yeah. And would be interesting to find out how many walls actually have termite damage at five feet. It would be. And those and also popular poplar sawmill two by fours. Yep. Do you have something Elizabeth. Yes. So we'll just staff will just need a clear methodology of how the one wall will be preserved or what all elements will be preserved so that we can work with our building, a neighborhood staff to ensure that that still counts as, a renovation. Right. Well, that's that's I think what we're getting at is it's like, is there any foundation going to be left that you're going to try and is there a foundation? And if you're reusing parts and pieces of that, that chimney, is that remaining for the most part, or is it being torn down and rebuilt? Okay. Those are all things that, you know, I think to staff's point, at some point, they have to consider it an application for demolition, which has already been seen to. And we hear that and voted on it before. So we've got to find ourself. I think we're all excited that you're going to do something with this. We just need to make sure it's documented well and that everybody's confident that it's going back to a place it should have been. Is that fair to say that that was. This has similarities to to 64 Natchez. Yeah. And it was just more, a as he suggest a piece at a time

kind of deal when everything is damaged. I mean, this house is set there. I don't know, 15 years stuff's going to happen, and I'm. It also be unimaginable deterioration. Sure. Yeah. It reminds me also on the house on Third Avenue South next to the railroad track. That's exactly right. I mean, I was in it before someone purchased it, and the entire floors had separated from the from the ceiling. They were all on the ground. I mean, it was in bad shape. Exactly. And it was brought back. That's right. It's fabulous. So it can be done. Yeah. Okay. I think it's all the it's it's the first part which creates some uncertainty. And everyone like, oh we drive by one day and there's a front gable. That's it. Can be unnerving. So as long as we have it documented and, you know, staff is the the folks who have to field questions from the community when they go, what have in this building, you say? Well, they were approved to to take down a lot of the building was in really bad shape, but it is going back the way it was that they need to be able to confidently say that us do. I may ask another question. Sure. About. So thinking about existing foundations right where we know it's currently rubble, which is not going to meet current codes for rebuild, would there be some appetite for if we maintained some of that, or save some of the historic stones and even split them as a veneer? If we went back with the CMU Foundation in certain locations so that we maintain that memory of the rubble Foundation, but updated it with a modern, structure. Is that what it has? Does it have a continuous stone foundation today, or is it just don't pierce? Part of it is on a continuous stone foundation. The front bit.

And then there are some piers kind of in the other additions, which may have been porches at some point they got infilled kind of thing like that. So it's, it's a mix. And then of course the newer, newer historic additions or CMU. I certainly I certainly would be for that. Yeah. Yeah. It's, we want it to look like I keep saying it should have. Right. Or to look like it should have looked the whole time and sure had been maintained. Right. But to go in and back, that was something that is, is better for the house. Wouldn't, wouldn't bother me a bit. I think that's the right thing to do. Yeah. And reusing original materials. I think we should be right fit with the guidelines. Okay. Yeah. Great. And I would say, and if wrong, if you remember different run but on the houses by the railroad tracks, I don't ever remember it getting down to where there was just a wall standing there. No, never. Yeah. That's not. Good. I don't want to plant that in. No. That is not good. Yeah, good historic preservation practice. I don't think to leave one wall standing. No. Understood. You think about how you're going to. How are you going to get there? From where? Where it's at today. I mean, it's. In you know, some of those houses may not have had these studs that are chewed up five feet. I mean, how do you and if you're going to put a foundation under the whole house, I mean, can the front wall even stay, or does it have to at least temporarily move when you build that foundation, like what it's meant? Yeah. And I've seen people pick a whole house up, but there's nothing to pick up right now, nothing that you could support it. So it's in really it's in tough shape.

So I'd like, you know, whoever the builder is really document what the plan is. And yes, you know. And this is a code issue because we're ultimately going to come down to what code says has to be done. So just to run that by them first would be would be advantageous. Okay. Yeah. Well I think what you're proposing size wise form wise, no I don't, I hadn't heard any issues with that. This front porch thing. I'd love to see if we could find a a Sanborn map with the front porch on it. But even based on the roof line and things, there's something happened there. It wasn't built like that. Right. So you can see the history inside with, where the old ends and the new begins, where there was some. Is there foundation under the old front wall that you found yet? Based on the photos, if it was there, it's it's not there anymore. But you're saying you see the ghosting, you see the ghost, right? We can see in the roof structure, kind of in where the the walls inside where the original foyer were, have been stripped of the lath and plaster, which is how we're seeing the termite damage. You can kind of see it there. Let's see. Yeah, that's, that's the one that's kind of angled over here on the left. What you're looking at, if you look off to the right of that image, is you kind of see new stud and old stud, kind of right in that top edge of the image where that was the end of the the existing house. And then everything forward of that is new white wood where that would have been infilled from the old porch. Okay. Sorry. That's a horrible photo to orient to, but, yeah. Okay. Anything else? Anybody?

All right. Very exciting. Thank you very much. Exciting. Thank you. So that. Item number six, discussion of an addition at 210 Third Avenue North. Brandon. Pretty. Yes Aaron Rodgers again. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Standing in for Brandon tonight. All right. Well thank you. We are proposing, renovation to an existing, homes business. On 210 third Avenue North. Property owner Sean Aiello is here with us tonight. He's, a lifelong Franklin resident and a long lineage of practicing, of legal practicing family in the Franklin area. So what we're proposing is taking the existing house and renovating, from what is currently, a dentist, dental office to allow office. So maintaining the historical character to the greatest extent possible to the exterior, there is existing asbestos siding that would be abated and removed. And from pictures that Sean shared with us, there does appear to be, foreign travel wood lap siding. So we don't know, the current condition of that until we remove the asbestos. But the intent would be to match that siding profile. Either if it can be restored. We would certainly want to do that. If not, we'll replace it in kind. And windows would ultimately, we'd want to restore the historic windows. And if not, if we're not able to, those would be replaced with new

to match the existing. Currently we have, let's see, 1900, square feet of building and shed in the back. And we're proposing, infilling an existing porch, to create more office space and also, new portion that would connect from the existing home to the shed of approximately 275ft². Those are all located on the side of the property, within that or outside of that seven foot side setback, they're not visible from the street. Any additions? An infill of that existing porch would be subordinate to the existing home and, not not visible from from any either side, of the property. And, and these renderings kind of show what that would look like. And currently, we have a current lot coverage of 38.16%. And the small additions that we are proposing, would increase that lot coverage to 43.66%. It's still below the, established our zoning requirements. But we do know, the guidelines recommend a lot coverage of 35%. So we're asking that we would be allowed to to increase that, lot coverage slightly with this addition, infill portion of the home. Okay, let's hear from staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The building at 210 Third Avenue North is located in the downtown Franklin Historic District and was constructed circa 1890.

Is proposed to replace the roof and can remove the asbestos siding and assess the siding underneath. And if it can be preserved, then it will be kept, but if repair is needed then it will be replaced in part, these alterations meet the intent of the guidelines, but material samples should be should be included within the sewer application. A 275 square foot addition is proposed on the rear of the building to connect the principal building to the accessory structure. The addition utilizes inserts from the existing building and appears to maintain the seven foot side yard setback, but measurements are needed to confirm this. It is also proposed to enclose the existing side porch. The placement of the addition and enclosing the side porch will not be highly visible from the right of way, which aligns with the guidelines. However, the addition may need a five foot separation between the buildings, and we would like to follow up with the applicant and the zoning administrator just to make sure the setbacks and zoning requirements are met. The guidelines recommend that additions should be a size, should be size, so that the overall building footprints of all the portions of the existing principal buildings, accessory structures, and proposed additions on the lot so that it does not exceed 35% of the lot as proposed, the building appears to exceed what the guidelines recommend by the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance requires that landscape surface area be a minimum of 40%. While it is noted that the existing windows are proposed to be rehabilitated and preserved, the new windows on the additions should align with the guidelines. Recommendations and specifications should be provided within the site. Application. More information is needed on the side areas that are attached to the existing accessory structure, and there are several project considerations that city staff has commented on and will be provided to the applicant with the DRC. Recap. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay.

Anybody want to speak to this one? Lisa. Just I'd love to see the street view. If we could. So the addition would not would not really be seen from the street view. That is correct. It will be in line with the existing, south wall of the home. And, do you you would not see a project at all, especially with the existing fence and hedgerow that's there. I mean, just for an initial review, the plan makes a lot of sense, in terms of what your idea is to, to connect the two buildings and. Again, the fact that you want to save the windows is a very good thing. The existing south elevation. Of course, nobody has ever been able to see that from the street. Nobody has any idea, I guess, how rundown it is. So would that require a demolition permit for some of that or. There is an existing porch, that that exists, and we would need to demo

a portion of that to rebuild what's there. It's a lot to think about. Is very anything. How much is the lot coverage staff and so it was provided. Let's see that the existing lot coverage is 38.16%. Well, the existing lot coverage is 38%. And it's proposed to cover 43%. And, the guidelines do recommend that it be, 35% of the lot. Okay. And, there's going to be a sidewalk going down the. Is that right? There will be there won't be a sidewalk. That's just some license with this rendering. But it'll just be that existing hedgerow and landscape. So there you'll have a seven foot green setback within the property line. So you won't you won't have direct access from the street back there. Okay. Isn't there are. There some concrete? There is a fence on that side. Yeah. This this is just a cutaway view to give you an idea of, the addition portion. And then are those going to be concrete steps? Those and I'm sorry for any confusion with this particular rendering. We we won't have steps to my knowledge on that side at all. It'll just be landscaping behind that monument site. Gotcha. That exists. Yeah.

And the fence that's shown to the whole. That's just concept. There wouldn't be a fence. Where there's existing fence that'll be maintained as well. Because it's showing what it looks like. It would run perpendicular to the existing fence to the house. So there won't be a section that goes in between there. Which portion? Right. It's at there, right below the steps that shown on the rendering. There's a little it looks like a fence. It would be perpendicular. They would run from the facade of the house. You know, that portion, to my knowledge, would not be there either. It would just be on the property line itself. Okay. The the comment I would make on the additions is that and it would help you some with your lot coverage is that it needs to me, it needs an offset from the main house. So from the main where that gable is, if I'm thinking about that right. Yeah. Where that gable is, that addition comes all the way out to the corner board. And if it had an offset where it's offset off of that part of the house by at least I'd say a foot, then it would come closer to meeting our guidelines for additions and help you some on that. On that lot coverage. Okay, I want to comment too. I think you've done a good job on the windows that you're showing on your addition at the rear with your four over four. And that was so typical of these houses. You saw the one over one in the front of the house and the back part of the house or four over four, there were cheaper windows. So I think you've done a good job in and mirroring what's on the other side. Bob, anything. Oh no. Lisa.

Can I ask a question about the landscape requirement? So staff mentioned 40%, and, it doesn't look like it's close to 40% to just visually. But are you at the 40% landscaping requirement? Landscape department? Oh, we are, I believe we exceed that currently with our our current. Yeah. If your lot coverage ends up being 43.66, then you'd have 56.33 landscapes, correct? Yeah. Which would be the delta between those two. And this house has great detailing with those corbels and the frieze that you see below the eaves. I'd be really interested to know how well the original all lap siding has weathered underneath these. Some that you might find that the fronts better than the sides. I think you're going to run into some of the same issues that walking around this house. What was on the market and, and knowing what Doctor Bertram was there. I think there might be some issues similar to what we heard. Last. In the last frame as well. So you might want to take take note two from that, those conversations. That sounds good because I have a feeling the seals, the seals are going to need some some work on this one to. Yeah. This, this lot coverage being over. It's a it's interesting because we just looked at the one that's a big lot and this is a little bitty lot. And even for this street is one of the smaller ones. It's 50 by 100 where we, you know, typically see something like 50 by 150 or something like that.

So, has anybody have any reaction to it being over our recommended 35%? Well, I'd like to see what happens when you whenever you try to reposition, maybe to get that offset how much it reduces that. I think with, with the portion there were infilling I believe that roofline comes out pretty much to the, to the outside edge of the house, but maybe we could. So you're saying that one would be need to be inset rather than the proposed. I guess that would follow suit with whatever inset, because those would align then down the side of the house. So we talked about this elevation. Well, when I look at your rendering, that roof line, in fact the the lap siding comes looks like it's just right behind the corner board. Right. So that's really no no offset at all. So if we put that all in all the way through the proposed as well, that might, that might. But is that the location of the I'm going to say wall, even though it's a porch, is that the location of the wall as it exists and you're just enclosing it? We're just enclosing it. I was that what it is? So that's existing that chunk. But it's not enclosed right now. And does the roof line does the roof line like that. It does. It lap up on top of the original roof? I believe so, but we're proposing having to to raise it slightly, just to get some increased head height to make it functional in that area for an office space. So, but it does, frame into the existing roof. So, you know, so it goes, it frames right into the existing roof and then makes an angle up. It doesn't tuck underneath the eave. I'd have to revisit that to see if for certain. Brian, that would be interesting to know.

And of course, if it were a porch, if it were a porch, you wouldn't see a solid wall across it, so it wouldn't matter as much on the on the offset. Yeah. So I think to enclose it like that, the guidelines recommend offsets from original from original portions of the house. So I think that would be a it's what we would expect in the guidelines. You know was it's going to make it. I was looking at this site plan ahead of time. And. I was looking at this outbuilding and attaching to it. I guess one of my questions at the time was, what do we once you attach the building, all is one. Well, now it all becomes primary. And now if you satisfied the setbacks because I think the setbacks for accessory structures and primary structures are different. So there are probably some question with zoning on whether or not that's even allowed. They may not let you attach them because it would be increasing the amount of kind of nonconformity on the lot. But, you know, I'm just as I was looking at it, I thought, I don't know that because I think the shed only has a couple feet setback, and once it's attached to the main house, now the house is considered a couple feet setback. So then the seven feet apply from there. Yeah. So and then that's really beyond our scope. But you might want to go talk to them and make sure that what you're proposing is even allowable under their, zoning regulations, guidelines, ordinance, all that. And when you reuse the outbuilding,

how much change will there be made to it? We're proposing just just renovating it similarly to the house. So it would essentially be various align with what what's currently there. But there's going to have to be a lot happen to make the construction of it be. You know, I agree that may be more of a codes thing than. And will you be removing the roof? We're going to be repairing the roof repair ratio. Getting new roof reroofing and. And weatherproofing. Okay. Anything else? Comments on this one? I think the more I think about the the kind of you call it a shed, but anyway, the original structure that you're putting up a new structure to it, there's just something inconsistent about those two. And regarding what Mr. Pearce was saying and I really it robs it of its authenticity. I think, too, because it's attached to this new, new part. That's all. Okay. And speaking to that, I mean, after walking around the property when it was up for sale. This. That shed is in deplorable condition. Is that I don't know how it needs. So now you're. Going to save any portion of that shed at all? Is it old? And I. I can't tell. I'd have to look at a Sanborn map when it was. It's not new. What do you got, Mason? I don't know. What does it have on it?

Plywood is just plywood all over Sandy. No, it's on the. That's a great question. Yeah. So working with the federal government. On the historic preservation tax. Come on. Come on up here so they can get you on the microphone. Yeah. So I'm working with the the feds on the historic preservation tax credit for this property. So not only touch the outside but also the inside to restore it as much as possible. And as part of that, I went back and pulled at the initial applications for this historic district. So in the 70s ish submission, it shows as a map that was submitted along with the previous Sanborn Maps. There has been an accessory structure on the property, but it's not visible there in that location as of that 1970 submission. Okay, so at that 50 year mark, it wasn't present then, but it was on the left side or there was a shed on the left side. So my assumption is it was built sometime probably either late 70s, early 80s in terms of construction of it. So I, I don't really see a lot of historic construction in it, but obviously will defer to you all on that. Yeah, but I'd submit those maps or whatever documentation here just because they'll be able to help interpret that and, and help you with that research because it, it helps us when their recommendation spells out, hey, we've looked at the data and we agree that, hey, this is we don't know exactly when, but, it's even helpful to know, even if it is old, if it's not contemporary to the House, because oftentimes we're interpreting things to the period of the House or the period of the neighborhood, and that's period of significance. So I submit it, let them see it. And, but my thing was really my comment was really about the setbacks. And like, you know, all of a sudden you may be putting the whole house

out of zoning compliance by touching the building. That's got different setbacks, which happens all the time, in other jurisdictions. So people end up touching a building that is allowed to have smaller setbacks. Now, when you attach them, they all have to fall within the zoning ordinance. Setbacks for the primary structure, which are usually pushed back further. So just check in to that, and make sure that that zoning is happy with this arrangement. So there's, there's that part. And then there's the part of, well, if that thing is contributing and it's an old structure that is worth, us honoring and, and hanging onto you, then it may not be appropriate to tie the building to it because of that reason, too. So, you know, just just a little more exploratory, research there would be helpful to staff and to us. And I would just add parenthetically, you know, some of the features you pointed out the corbels on there is a really nice older wooden door that was cut down at some point, but there's a transom above that. We're really excited about restoring that. And the beadboard, type porch with the wooden floors. And frankly, you know, as much as we can get it back to the original, that's what I want. And I've been working with Rick Warren to try to locate a photo of it of that time period. We haven't found anything yet. But we're optimistic. If we do, that'll be exhibit one. So one observation. I'm looking at Google Maps and a street Street view, and it's actually from the corner of the porch. You can tell where that that porch roof has been, some point completely redone. You know, the corbels and the way the frames come around. It's actually just kind of just a funny looking. Yeah. A little off to the side. I'm sure that porch roof went under that at one time. The other side there. That's right. But I was wondering if you're doing extensive work on it,

it would be nice to see that feature come back. Yeah. Because that is part I'm sure that freeze went all the way around where the porch would have been for the roof. And that went run under that freeze. And the porch roof would have been a little shallower and sit underneath the fascia of the original main roof line. And there's the evidence that it was that way. At some point. You can see, I mean, it. Yeah. Let me call that. They just call it bad news. But when we take the roof off, would be glad to do that and see what's under there anyway. So yeah bring bring that proposal. We have approved that type of arrangement before. Yeah. You don't have to do it. I mean, it's not something you're wired to. We'd love for you to, but because it's existing. But I mean, if it was something you want to bring back, it's something that we could actually. Entertain. And tax credits have a extensive review process. So they they do, you know, interestingly at working with the state, they didn't seem that familiar with, the Franklin Historic Commission, which makes me wonder if anybody here has done that recently. We try to keep a low profile. Oh, I know, but it's interesting that they said that they've taken, I guess, part of our guidelines from the National Park Service guidelines for restoration. And we apply that on the inside. You know, there's kind of double sided fireplaces, there's wood floor, those transom windows throughout. So again, just trying to keep historic as much as possible while still making it functional is exciting. To my knowledge. No one has done a tax credit recently. Being an attorney helps because it requires a lot of of legal work. I think the old City Hall building were, alabaster and onyx. They may have worked with the Tennessee they may grant in tax credits. I think they did. They do,

in this last redo. In this last redo. Or at anything else specific that we can help gather feedback for now. Everything okay? Perfect. All right. I'm the worst client. I speak at my own hearing in, my client's in, and I'd be kicking them under the table. You're a good witness, so that's okay. So has an attorney for file a full for both. I'm aware. I'm not saying in this case, there's. All right, let's thank you all very much. It's. Going to be great. Yeah, it's very exciting. Let's go to staff for some announcements, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The deadline to apply for the, upcoming historic zoning meeting. It. I believe it's the January 12th historic zoning meeting. Is this upcoming Tuesday, December 23rd. And, we would also like to thank Miss Lisa marquart for her service and tenure serving on historic Zoning Commission, as this is her last meeting, as both a volunteer and a resident of the historic district, you have brought a thoughtful and personal perspective to the work that truly strengthens the Commission's efforts and your knowledge and professionalism and heart for preservation have benefited the Commission staff and, most importantly, the community. So thank you. Thank. You, thank. You Lisa. Nice work. And I have one word, one word for everybody. Privilege. It's been such a privilege. I've learned so much. And, Barry, it was a privilege meeting you more than ten years ago. Yes. And she said you want want to look into this historic zoning commission opening? I sure did. And. And why mayor Moore thought I might do a good job. It is still beyond me. But he trusted me.

And, I will always look back on this as just one of the greatest experiences and learning possibilities in my whole life. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. And, yeah, on behalf of all the other commissioners, thank you so much as well. I think we're if anybody else has anything else, we can be adjourned. Thank you. I'm going to miss you.