Gail Kerr's column in The Tennessean lists 10 folks in Metro government she would like to see stick around with the new mayor. Making her list include Metro Clerk Marilyn Swing (who actually works for both the mayor and the Council), Kenneth Eads, Billy Lynch, Donna Nicely, Marilyn Edwards, Reginald Coopwood, Curt Garrigan, Billy Fields, Gene Nolan and Joni Vandershoor. These are all great picks but I want to add a few of my own.
I want Margaret Ann Robinson to remain forever as the head of the Library Board. Margaret Ann (and she insists that I call her Margaret Ann) is the motivation and inspiration behind the gorgeous downtown library as well as the expansion and improvements in the branch system. For those who know Margaret Ann, you know that she is someone who could just as easily stay home and still be respected by all. Instead she has relentless pursued her dream of a first class library system for Nashville. Some years ago, when she was in her 70's, Margaret Ann traveled on the Chamber of Commerce study mission trips as a way to rub elbows with all the city's power brokers and sell the idea of a downtown library. Now, in her 9th decade, her dream is realized. It doesn't get any better than Margaret Ann Robinson.
I want Rick Bernhardt to remain as head of the Metro Planning Department. Rick has transformed our land use planning process from one dominated by appointed committees to an inclusive, consensus driven community discussion. The result has been more thoughtful, more orderly and certainly more beautiful development. Rick recognizes more than any other person I know that the people who live and work in Nashville's neighborhoods are best equiped to know both its challenges and its potential. Rick also knows that our efforts to build a great city are long lasting and the results will be with our children and grandchildren. Like planting a tree, planning a city sometimes means you will work hard for something you may never see in your lifetime. Plus, I gotta respect a guy who gives up golf for riding a motocycle.
One of the people that works hard every day to help Nashville forever keep it distance from third world problems is Scott Potter at Metro Water Services. For those of you who don't keep up you may think that MWS is still a backwater filled with too many political patronage jobs, not enough customer service, and excessively high rates. If so, you would be wrong. Metro Water Services has not seen a rate increase since 1996. In 1999, sewer rates were actually cut 25%. Scott, who has been on the job since 2002, and the rest of the management team have used their time wringing as many inefficiencies and poor management practices as possible out of their system. The result is one of the unsung success stories of government. Operation and Maintenance expenses for Metro Water Services have increased an average of about 3% a year for the last 9 years despite the additional responsibility of the Cumberland Utility District. We are lucky to have Scott and the rest of his team especially considering most of them could make a lot more money in the private sector.
The entire Board of Zoning Appeals can stay for as long as they can endure the tedium and vagueness of the Metro Zoning Code. As someone with first hand experience with the "before" and "after" I can say I like today's model better. I can recall a time when one BZA member was fond of taking cell phone calls during meetings. While residents of a community were pouring out their hearts to the board, he would sit in full view of all and talk on the phone loudly enough to be picked up by the audio tape recording the meeting. Some years ago, during a particularly contentious meeting, the consultants for the property developer learned this board member's cell phone number and called it throughout the meeting so he could not hear the testimony. This board member nonetheless concluded he had paid enough attention to vote in favor of the property developer and against the concerned neighborhood. Today we have Ibba Surface who is smart, funny and knows to call em like she sees em. Charlie Williams, David Ewing and Jane Cleveland are also outstanding members. I frequently disagree with their decisions but I cannot argue with how they make them. They are honest, fair, intelligent and thoughtful.
So Gail, I'll see your 10 and raise you 2 plus a half dozen board members!
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Other people I'd like to see stick around
Board of Zoning Appeals Defers Church
On Thursday September 20, the Board of Zoning Appeals deferred their decision on the West Nashville Church of Christ at 825 Templeton Road. The BZA asked church leaders to re-work the plan to accomodate certain suggestions and comments from the neighborhood and from the Department of Public Works.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Notes from August 30 Community Meeting
On August 30 we had a very well attended community meeting regarding the Special Exception application of the West Nashville Heights Church of Christ for a new church at 825 Templeton Road. Joining me at the front of the room were Jim Dillingham and Larry Heim of the West Nashville Church of Christ and Philip Piercy of Littlejohn Engineering.
The meeting began with Jim Dillingham presenting the site plan as submitted to Metro Zoning. Two aspects of the plan were different from the concept presented at a Community Meeting on July 5. The first was that an original planning goal was to make sure traffic used Charlotte and Old Charlotte for ingress and egress and the plan submitted called for additional driveway access on Templeton. The second change was the inclusion of parking at the rear of the church along Templeton instead of keeping it closer to the Old Charlotte side. Mr Dillingham and Mr. Piercy explained these changes. The driveway access along Templeton was designed to improve circulation within the parking area. Additional curb cuts on Old Charlotte are somewhat limited because the code will not allow them with 50 feet of a corner. The inclusion of parking in the rear was designed to preserve existing tree stands on other parts of the property.
What followed was a Q & A period. Questions from the audience centered on additional expansion plans of the church, signage, location and buffering of parking areas, ingress and egress, traffic impact, lighting and security. Let me take those topics one at a time.
Expansion plans: The Church has no plans to expand. They have a largely older population and are looking to accomodate the specific needs of the elderly. They may at some point build a multi-purpose/gymnasium building on the parcel. Certain church members own and/or control other lots nearby. I reminded both church leaders and residents that any expansion of use beyond those integral to a church's function like worship service, sunday school, bible study, etc., would require an additional round of approvals from Metro. Installation of additional parking lots would likely be approved by staff but new buildings or the establishement of a day care or school, for example, would go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Signage:There was concern about the height and lighting of a church sign. Representatives of the Church has not yet decided on the size and position of a sign. I expressed my personal preference that the sign be monument style with no flashing or scolling text and be remotely lit. Several people expressed concern about too much lighting and too high a sign.
Location and Buffering of Parking Areas: People who live across from or next to the church expressed concern about the location of the parking areas. Many of the people on Templeton wanted the parking area proposed for the rear of the church be moved to the Old Charlotte side. The property owners on Old Charlotte, however, wanted to retain the existing trees and house as a buffer to their home. Moving the parking area to the Old Charlotte side would require the removal of a number of large trees. Several people asked that the church exceed the required buffering requirements of the parking areas by planting more shrubbery and some understory plantings. Church leaders asked for suggestions. I suggested that area residents drive by St George's on Harding Road for an idea how nicely a parking lot can be landscaped. Though not discussed, berms are also a great tool for screening a parking lot from view.
Ingress and Egress: Residents expressed a preference for locating all ingress and egress on Old Charlotte. This desire may run afoul of code requirements that prohibit curb cuts within 50 feet of a corner. Mr. Percy made note that a churchgoer who wished to use Templeton would still do so regardless of where the curb cuts were made. I think there will be more discussion on this one.
Traffic Impact: See above. A traffic study is not required for this application but the BZA could mandate one. Such a study would give a good understanding of the number of car trips generated by church services and activities. Neighborhood residents are also free to obtain a traffic study on their own. One concern I have is that traffic engineers have in the past indicated that the green buffer between Charlotte and Old Charlotte should be cut through at Templeton. Anyone who lives and drives in that area knows that it makes a natural traffic calming device and allows a residential area to exist in close proximity to an arterial street. The church has indicated that they would not alter or develop this green space and intended to keep it in a natural state.
Lighting: On the one hand residents expressed an interest in avoiding any more light pollution. These residents wanted the lights to be placed and shielded so as not to shine in their homes or on their property. Other residents were concerned about safety and thought lighting would help mitigate those concerns. I think there are a number of commercial lighting solutions for this problem. Ensworth High School on Highway 100 has some nicely hooded lights around their campus that provide safe lighting with very little light pollution.
Security: There was a great deal of discussion about security. Residents expressed concern about a large space in close proximity to the heavily traveled Charlotte Pike that would be unsecured in the evenings. One suggestion was that security gates be installed at the entrances to the parking lots. No consensus was developed around a way to address these concerns.
For anyone who does not have it, here is a copy of the site plan:
The meeting began with Jim Dillingham presenting the site plan as submitted to Metro Zoning. Two aspects of the plan were different from the concept presented at a Community Meeting on July 5. The first was that an original planning goal was to make sure traffic used Charlotte and Old Charlotte for ingress and egress and the plan submitted called for additional driveway access on Templeton. The second change was the inclusion of parking at the rear of the church along Templeton instead of keeping it closer to the Old Charlotte side. Mr Dillingham and Mr. Piercy explained these changes. The driveway access along Templeton was designed to improve circulation within the parking area. Additional curb cuts on Old Charlotte are somewhat limited because the code will not allow them with 50 feet of a corner. The inclusion of parking in the rear was designed to preserve existing tree stands on other parts of the property.
What followed was a Q & A period. Questions from the audience centered on additional expansion plans of the church, signage, location and buffering of parking areas, ingress and egress, traffic impact, lighting and security. Let me take those topics one at a time.
Expansion plans: The Church has no plans to expand. They have a largely older population and are looking to accomodate the specific needs of the elderly. They may at some point build a multi-purpose/gymnasium building on the parcel. Certain church members own and/or control other lots nearby. I reminded both church leaders and residents that any expansion of use beyond those integral to a church's function like worship service, sunday school, bible study, etc., would require an additional round of approvals from Metro. Installation of additional parking lots would likely be approved by staff but new buildings or the establishement of a day care or school, for example, would go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Signage:There was concern about the height and lighting of a church sign. Representatives of the Church has not yet decided on the size and position of a sign. I expressed my personal preference that the sign be monument style with no flashing or scolling text and be remotely lit. Several people expressed concern about too much lighting and too high a sign.
Location and Buffering of Parking Areas: People who live across from or next to the church expressed concern about the location of the parking areas. Many of the people on Templeton wanted the parking area proposed for the rear of the church be moved to the Old Charlotte side. The property owners on Old Charlotte, however, wanted to retain the existing trees and house as a buffer to their home. Moving the parking area to the Old Charlotte side would require the removal of a number of large trees. Several people asked that the church exceed the required buffering requirements of the parking areas by planting more shrubbery and some understory plantings. Church leaders asked for suggestions. I suggested that area residents drive by St George's on Harding Road for an idea how nicely a parking lot can be landscaped. Though not discussed, berms are also a great tool for screening a parking lot from view.
Ingress and Egress: Residents expressed a preference for locating all ingress and egress on Old Charlotte. This desire may run afoul of code requirements that prohibit curb cuts within 50 feet of a corner. Mr. Percy made note that a churchgoer who wished to use Templeton would still do so regardless of where the curb cuts were made. I think there will be more discussion on this one.
Traffic Impact: See above. A traffic study is not required for this application but the BZA could mandate one. Such a study would give a good understanding of the number of car trips generated by church services and activities. Neighborhood residents are also free to obtain a traffic study on their own. One concern I have is that traffic engineers have in the past indicated that the green buffer between Charlotte and Old Charlotte should be cut through at Templeton. Anyone who lives and drives in that area knows that it makes a natural traffic calming device and allows a residential area to exist in close proximity to an arterial street. The church has indicated that they would not alter or develop this green space and intended to keep it in a natural state.
Lighting: On the one hand residents expressed an interest in avoiding any more light pollution. These residents wanted the lights to be placed and shielded so as not to shine in their homes or on their property. Other residents were concerned about safety and thought lighting would help mitigate those concerns. I think there are a number of commercial lighting solutions for this problem. Ensworth High School on Highway 100 has some nicely hooded lights around their campus that provide safe lighting with very little light pollution.
Security: There was a great deal of discussion about security. Residents expressed concern about a large space in close proximity to the heavily traveled Charlotte Pike that would be unsecured in the evenings. One suggestion was that security gates be installed at the entrances to the parking lots. No consensus was developed around a way to address these concerns.
For anyone who does not have it, here is a copy of the site plan:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
