The meeting came to order at 7:02 PM, and was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of minutes from last month.

Citizen comments: none

McCord/Nolen commercial office project. Designer Mr. Barnet, spoke. Said they are incorporating the architecture in with the existing historic district. Most of the evolving is 1900s farm-style based on study of The Homeplace B&B. It will consist of 4 office buildings. The 3 new buildings are 1-story and the remodeled will be 2 stories.

Commissioner Wanda Barker said they were confused about the placement of the buildings, so Town Planner Henry Laird showed the locations on a map. Building 4 will be at the back of the site. Commissioner Barker then asked about uses of the buildings. Mr. Barnet said they will be for general use retail office, possibly restaurant. Commissioner Brent Brandon said he is encouraged by the newer design, that it looks more like what the Design Review Committee recommended. He said he didn't see anything in the design that should not be included in the Historic District. Commissioner Barker asked about molding and casings. Mr. Barnet said windows will be wood with metal or vinyl outsides. Commissioner Josh Hughes commented that some of the details were hard to see on the displays, but he could see them digital images provided to the commission.

Town Counsel Robert Notestine stated that the goal of the meeting is to determine whether or not these plans would warrant a certificate of appropriateness rather to try to decide about the details or whether it is in the flood plain. Planner Laird said the Historic Commission could look at this from an overall plan for a certificate, or take it building by building.

Betty said that she was concerned about passing this along to the Planning Commission because the Design Review Committee hasn't really looked at these new changes. Commissioner Barnet said that most of what the Design Review Committee has discussed earlier have been incorporated into the new designs. Design Review Committee member Carla Ediger affirmed that to be true.

Alderman Larry Felts said that he still has some concerns because there isn't enough detail to show that it looks historic enough. He said that Mr. Barnet is on the right track.

Commissioner Josh Hughes asked to go building by building, suggesting comments. Commissioner Barker commented that she wanted more shutters. She said she liked building number two because it has shutters. Alderman Felts said building three was the one he really liked. Commissioner Brandon said he liked it too, while Commissioner Barker said the two windows on the top should be one big window with stutters. She also wanted a little wider casing around the front door. Commissioner Brandon said he wanted more elegance on building four, while Barker said she thought building four was the best at representing the Historic District. Felts said he felt the Design Review Committee did a good job in leading the plans in the right direction.

Counsel Notestine recommended that the commission approve the plans with conditions placed on the design to be with changes from the Design Review Committee, and come back with changes for approval. The motion passed unanimously.


Item: sign regulation. Planner Laird gave a summary, saying that the changes are to allow more than strictly black and white, and to allow for more earth tones, numeral or subtle colors, and for colors that are part of a trademark or logo  permitted on a case-by-case basis provided they remained subdued. There would be no more than three colors on a sign. Larger stores would have a little bit more leeway. Businesses would need to submit a full list of all signage, where, colors, use, etc. Basically this will provide more allowance for some muted colors. Commissioner Brandon said he liked the idea of sign master plans. Commissioner Betty Friedlander commended Laird for his work. Brandon said it was apparent there weren't any objections. Agreement of staff was decided. Motion was made to accept the staff recommendations of changes in their present form with the condition that any changes would be reviewed by the HZC. Motion was passed.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Lynda , May 28, 2010

The best I could tell, the least attractive IMO, split level ranch type will go along the creek as the entrance of the historic district. Picturing it there and next to the 2 story white house is not something I want to see, even if there were no flooding at all to be considered.

The next building would be next to the red brick dentist office and the old drug store would be remodeled. Looking between those 2, there would be a building in between further back. That is the other two story; the one people liked best????

I've been around construction over 40 years. I have no problem reading plans or visualizing what something is going to look like where. The mayor has said in the past that she can't, but many people can't. They need photographs or the finished project.

Finished buildings and computer drawings don't look a lot alike. Computer colors are different and drawings lack texture. They are cold looking so its not fair to judge by computer pix.
Seeing the actual products and colors to be used is very helpful. The small scraps of samples looked good, but a paint or roof sample look very different in large amounts. Photos look different from real windows and doors, etc. The presentation was nice. I saw the original drawings, and these do look better, although like Barnett, I liked the barn red pop of color on one of the originals. These buildings looked too bland to me.

While they are not unattractive, IMO, the long ranch styles, especially of the one with the split level middle, don't resemble anything like the historic district to me. Even the two two stories don't, but they don't look bad.
If they looked at Dr. Larratta's and the Bennett's 2 houses as their inspiration, why does the development look NOTHING like any of them????
Even board members agreed they looked like D.C. and that area like that was a good thing.

Carla Ediger said the Design Review Committee wanted them to look like Tennessee because the historic district is so important. How many of the DRC have lived in Tennessee very long? If the district is so important, why put buildings in the flood plain, one right on the creek bank, regardless of what they look like? Building in the floodplain was not for the HZC to consider; only the appropriateness of design.

The Hardi Planks will be pale goldish beige and light light grays with white trim and windows, stained doors, black shutters and fluted white columns and man-made rock foundations. The gray raised v metal roofs I especially didn't like, but it is cheaper and lasts a long, long time.

While I'm sure they will cost a fortune, they look like cheap imitations to me and nothing like existing buildings or what Mary Pierce of the Williamson County Historical Society recommended.
They look just like an outlet mall at Pigeon Forge, IMO. Not nearly as attractive as Bass Pro Shop at Opry Mills.

I have a family member whose new farmhouse is almost the same color and style but with nice architectural roof shingles and real rock foundation and wooden windows. It is very attractive in the middle of a pasture, surrounded by woods. I couldn't help picturing it in the historic district and thinking "OH NO!", especially with gray metal roofing and fake rock. Aren't there enough real rocks around Nolensville that people would donate for the foundation and chimney?

After the buildup of the developer going to New England and all around looking at buildings, I expected something much, much more authentic looking, not new and cheap, because I know its possible to build buildings that fit right in with old surroundings. The materials will be easy maintenance though.

The one that will be the entrance to the historic district looked much like A+ storage on Johnson Industrial to me. In fact, I went by to look at A+
last night again and pulled in and thought "Yep, that's the look". It has molding over the entrance door too. Lots of dormers aren't going to change the style that much.

Why not give approval to remodel the old drug store first, then see if it looks good enough to build more? Oh, I forgot. That would be common sense, so that option wouldn't even be considered.

The historic district needs a face-lift. It wouldn't take much to make several old buildings also look more attractive. Many people remember what the two story old bank and grocery next to the funeral home looked like before a former owner painted over the nice old brick with the whole side wall mural of Pepsi Cola, that wouldn't be allowed today. Maybe when sewers are in, and new tenants take an interest, money will be spent on fix up.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment