Jump to content

Davidson East: East Nashville, Inglewood, Madison, Donelson, Hermitage, Old Hickory


smeagolsfree

Recommended Posts


Quote

Matters of Development

Beloved dive bar and karaoke hangout, Fran’s Eastside, will reopen Saturday at its new location of 2504 Dickerson Pike, Ste. B — the former location of Bellshire Pizza, which has moved to Smyrna. The soft opening welcomes a new Fran’s much like the old Fran’s, with smoking indoors and karaoke on the weekends. There will be two pool tables and a stage for live music (eventually). “It’s still the same old Eastside. It’s a dive bar,” says Katrina Head, bartender and daughter of Fran’s owner Frances Adams. A grand opening party in the near future is being discussed. Hours are Monday-Thursday 10 a.m.-?, Friday-Saturday 10 a.m. to 3 a.m., and Sunday noon to 3 a.m. 

The owner of Lincoln College of Technology, previously known as Nashville Auto-Diesel College, announced Monday that it has agreed to sell its roughly 15-acre Gallatin Avenue campus in East Nashville for $34.5 million, according to the Nashville Scene

The owners of Greko in East Nashville and Darfons in Donelson are planning an ambitious retail project in Donelson that will include a sports bar called Greeno and Shorty’s, a collaboration with Martin’s barbecue owner Pat Martin, and an Italian food concept called Salento Italia, according to AXIOS Nashville. One other major restaurant tenant is finalizing its lease, and the project will also feature a Scout’s barbershop.

The ShipOffers fulfillment company has announced a Nashville location, coming on board this summer.

https://www.theeastnashvillian.com/east-side-buzz-january-28

Edited by grilled_cheese
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 12:40 PM, grilled_cheese said:

IlxlufQ.png

Am I thinking correctly that they have split this SFH plot into four?  LS-TG Home Fund LLC leads back to an address in Berry Hill and if you look that address up it leads back to Legacy South.

Going to steal this for a post (Tuesday Feb 1) for my East Nash Urban Design Facebook page.  I unfortunately don't have anything to add, but I think it's interesting on a few levels.  

The one curious thing to me is: It's RS7.5 which requires 7,500 min lot size. Yet Planning allowed the lots to be divided down to 5,250.  Doesn't bother me, I'm basically a YIMBY.  But it is interesting.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DJIII said:

Going to steal this for a post (Tuesday Feb 1) for my East Nash Urban Design Facebook page.  I unfortunately don't have anything to add, but I think it's interesting on a few levels.  

The one curious thing to me is: It's RS7.5 which requires 7,500 min lot size. Yet Planning allowed the lots to be divided down to 5,250.  Doesn't bother me, I'm basically a YIMBY.  But it is interesting.  

Have at it. 

I think this would better split into two, left to right parcels, as this is pretty deep in the neighborhood.  If this were closer to Gallatin I would be all for the density but I don't think this area deems that type.  If I were either side property owner I would not be happy.  And, as I have chronicled in other posts in this thread about a nearby property, these types or properties would go to out of town non owner occupied short term rentals.

"Yet Planning allowed...."

Do you have a link for this?  Really, I want to understand more about the process behind it.

Edited by grilled_cheese
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Have at it. 

I think this would better split into two, left to right parcels, as this is pretty deep in the neighborhood.  If this were closer to Gallatin I would be all for the density but I don't think this area deems that type.  If I were either side property owner I would not be happy.  And, as I have chronicled in other posts in this thread about a nearby property, these types or properties would go to out of town non owner occupied short term rentals.

"Yet Planning allowed...."

Do you have a link for this?  Really, I want to understand more about the process behind it.

I don't have a link or know if there even exist public records around subdividing land.  I am sure several people on this board will know better than I how to dig for those records & whether they are publicly available.  I am concluding Planning allowed it because I see the BEFORE & the AFTER, therefore some legal process must have occurred to make it so.  I'm interested to learn if anyone wants to do a little tutorial to show  us all how to locate subdivision paperwork.   I asked someone at Planning & they pointed me towards the general subdivision regulations, which I am not going to waste my time reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The empty lots at 407-409 Russell St. making up .38 acre immediately west of the Eastside Heights Apts.  have gone uip for sale for a collective $5 million. 

The Allinder family owns the property, having paid a collective $60,000 for the two in the early 1980s, Metro records show.

Each parcel offering is the equivalent of about $13.15 million per acre and roughly $302 per square foot (both of which are line with recent offerings and sales)

The two parcels share a border with 408 Woodland St., which the Allinder family offered for sale in late 2021 for an undisclosed asking price.  That 0.8-acre site has been owned by members family since at least 1956, according to Metro records. Located within a federally designated opportunity zone, the three properties are zoned for commercial usage and are being marketed for redevelopment.

Combining these two separate lots into one large 1.2 acre site could yield a very nice location for a substantial project that would have unblocked views of the skyline on its western side.

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/east-nashville-sites-located-near-interstate-listed-for-sale/article_faa25146-8444-11ec-ba69-23b84bd58c70.html

404-409 Russell:

407-409 Russell, Feb 2, 2022, aerial site.png


408 Woodland St:

408 Woodland, Feb 2, 2022, aerial site.png

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2022 at 11:18 AM, smeagolsfree said:

That sounds like a Brett question!!!!!!!!!!

I got an answer from a Planning Dept employee. Excuse my wording, I’ll attempt to get the substance across. This is big picture, don’t get hung up on exact vocabulary. 
 

The lot lines we see on Parcel Viewer (the 4 x ~2,520 sft lots) are legacy lot lines that have been mechanically/administratively re-established as a matter of procedure. Ie. Nobody in planning made a call that these lines are A-OK in 2022. It’s just what happens when someone records a deed.

Fuerther!… a former right of way (potential access via alley???) at some point was absorbed into the overall lot(s), which according to my Planning friend, negates the legal rights to have the lots all fronted perpendicularly to the main road. Of course we all see with our eyes that you could run a driveway down the side & it would serve the same purpose as an alleyway, but apparently that is a No-go under current rules. That & the fact that these lots are too small under RS7.5 zoning.

So the TLDR is: The lots you see on Parcel Viewer are legacy (pre WW2) lot lines and basically have no legal bearing in 2022. Also Codes has flagged these 4 lots and will not issue building permits as-is.

 

NIMBY’s Rejoice!

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DJIII said:

I got an answer from a Planning Dept employee. Excuse my wording, I’ll attempt to get the substance across. This is big picture, don’t get hung up on exact vocabulary. 
 

The lot lines we see on Parcel Viewer (the 4 x ~2,520 sft lots) are legacy lot lines that have been mechanically/administratively re-established as a matter of procedure. Ie. Nobody in planning made a call that these lines are A-OK in 2022. It’s just what happens when someone records a deed.

Fuerther!… a former right of way (potential access via alley???) at some point was absorbed into the overall lot(s), which according to my Planning friend, negates the legal rights to have the lots all fronted perpendicularly to the main road. Of course we all see with our eyes that you could run a driveway down the side & it would serve the same purpose as an alleyway, but apparently that is a No-go under current rules. That & the fact that these lots are too small under RS7.5 zoning.

So the TLDR is: The lots you see on Parcel Viewer are legacy (pre WW2) lot lines and basically have no legal bearing in 2022. Also Codes has flagged these 4 lots and will not issue building permits as-is.

 

NIMBY’s Rejoice!

Thanks.  Very strange though as multiple properties in this subdivision have changed hands over the last decade and I've never seen the parcels revert to older zoning layouts.  Additionally, that house is from the 70s as most on that street are along with 60s style houses.  I'm surprised Planning's records would go back that far as the Property History tab shows them being established until post-war.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I went to a planning meeting for this Ben Allen development like five years ago.  Or maybe that was on the North side of BA?  Either way, hopefully this will put an end to the illegal dumping on Ben Allen.  If you need used tires or a big screen TV from the early 2000s, that's your place.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, markhollin said:

Diagram for the multi-family development at 204 Ben Allen (68 single-family lots, 62 townhomes):
 

204 Ben Allen, Jan 25, 2022, site diagram.png

I personally came very close to purchasing this same property about 40 years ago.  The top of this hill  has the best view of downtown in Inglewood.   What made me  not buy it was that the elevation was above the elevation of water service and I believe it may still be the case.  As an architect, I think this layout sucks.  They paid  little attention to the views and placed units against the property lines instead. There is no way to accomplish this without utterly destroying the land.  It looks to me like they snipped out paper cutouts and shuffled them around to pack as much as possible on the site.  I feel sorry for the folks below them on Hart Lane.  I think dealing with the water runoff would be a nightmare.

Edited by Baronakim
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.