Jump to content

Westin on Lower Broad

QuietMike

By QuietMike
in Nashville

Recommended Posts

it's just dave Burg

it's just dave

Posted
Posted

But wouldn't voting against the overlay in effect open the entire area up for many "Westins"? Being on the Historic Register offers zero protection, but an overlay would. I look for this vote to show us the Council can exercise common sense and allow the Westin project to help protect Lower Broadway from denizens possibly much less flexible and accomodating than Barber and Sage. I guess we'll know soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 955
  • Created
  • Last Reply
elguapo731 Whistle-Stop

elguapo731

Posted
Posted

A little confused. Westin goes up for third approval next week, but in the City Paper Article I read that Jamenson said that as it is, the developers could build whatever the wanted with none of the agreements that have been negotiated. So whats going on? Is this all a show of good faith from the developers? Is all they need a building permit to proceed right now at this very moment?

Am I wrong when I assume that if the developers choose to purchase the entire block, blow it up, and place a Jack-In-The-Box on the site, they could do so with nothing more then a lot of screaming from the preservationist?

Sorry, there has been so much back and forth bickering, stalling, meeting after meeting with even homeless drug off the street to protest, that it all has my head spinning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Black and White Whistle-Stop

Black and White

Posted
Posted

This is wrong (as quoted from the City Paper article above):

"The overlay would established a set of design guidelines giving the Metro Historical Commission authority to approve or disapprove future development along Lower Broad,...."

The Historical Commission does not have that that power. According to the Metro Charter, that power belongs to the Metro Historical "Zoning" Commission. I've seen the powers of the Historical Commission expanded during the years of the Purcell administration to include powers not granted by the Charter and it really needs to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Black and White Whistle-Stop

Black and White

Posted
Posted

These are the powers of the Historic Zoning Commission as set by the Charter:

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway....4214&sid=42

17.40.410 Powers and duties.

A. Creation of Historic Overlay Districts. The historic zoning commission shall review applications calling for the designation of historic overlay districts according to the standards contained in Chapter 17.36, Article III, referring written recommendations to the metropolitan council. Establishment of an historic overlay district on the official zoning map shall be in accordance with Section 18.02 of the Metropolitan Charter and Article III of this chapter.

So the council has to approve the Lower Broadway overlay by the following method:

Sec. 18.02. Enactment, revisions, modification or changes of zoning regulations.

Zoning regulations shall be enacted by the council only on the basis of a comprehensive plan prepared by the metropolitan planning commission in accordance with the applicable state laws and as provided in section 3.05 of this Charter.

Any revision, modification or change in the zoning regulations of the metropolitan government as provided in this section shall be made only by ordinance. Where a proposed ordinance revises, modifies, or changes the zoning regulations and is not accompanied at introduction by a favorable recommendation of the metropolitan planning commission, a copy thereof shall be promptly furnished by the metropolitan clerk to said planning commission, and the same shall not be passed on second reading until the recommendation of said planning commission with respect to the proposal has been received or thirty (30) days have elapsed without such recommendation. No ordinance making any revision, modification or change in the zoning regulations which has been disapproved by the metropolitan planning commission shall be finally passed or become effective unless it shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the whole membership of the council and also then be approved by the metropolitan mayor, with a three-fourths majorityof the whole membership of the council required to override a veto.

There is something really wierd in the Westin bill. Clause 7. calls for the establishment of the zoning overlay. In order for the zoning overlay to be established it has to go through the process described above including approval by the council.

How can Council Members vote to approve the Westin bill if no overlay has been established prior to the time of the third reading vote? How can Jameson support the bill if the overlay hasn't been established prior to third reading?

What if the Commission disapproves the overlay and the Council votes against it after the Westin bill is approved?

Something just doesn't match up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Black and White Whistle-Stop

Black and White

Posted
Posted
BandW is correct as I understand it. The SP zoning allows the Westin to vary from current sky plane restrictions on Third. The current zoning for that particular block allows them to go to 200 feet or so. By pushing the mass of the building away from Broadway and Second, they need the sky plane variance on Third. Hence the SP zoning request.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
prguy Unincorporated Area

prguy

Posted
Posted
Under current zoning there is no set back requirement on Broadway and no mandatory compliance with any historical design guidelines. The developers are doing both under pressure from Jameson. They could, under current zoning, demolish everything on their property and build to the sidewalk and go straight up on Broadway. They would have to adhere to the setbacks on 3rd and 4th. Technically, it is not a variance. A variance is an exception to the base zone classification. They are asking to change the zone classification and set up there specific setbacks requirements under the SP provision.

The developer does not have the ability to agree or disagree with the overlay. It will not affect their building except as the required overlay establishment as described in clause 7. of the bill. I am still not sure how that works since the bill requires the establishment of the overlay before the bill is passed on third reading.

If you mean that they agreed with the overlay establishment being applied to everyone except them I could see why they would agree and contribute money. According to the SP bill without the establishment of an overlay there is no approved site plan. No approved site plan - no Westin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prguy Unincorporated Area

prguy

Posted
Posted
They may have agreed to do that but they really didn't have any power to agree or disagree. They were just agreeing to something they were being forced to do anyway. Jameson could have submitted the very same bill regardless of the developer's opinion.

They would have never been allowed the sky plane variance on Third Ave.(correct, we are talking about setbacks on second and third). Plus, they would have had plenty of mass and would not have had to ask for the variance on the side street setbacks if they had decided to build straight up from the street as recommended in the UZO regulations.

I'm not sure of the use classification of this building (MU?) nor the base zone classification of the site. Knowing those two designations would allow me to see what the setback requirements are for the building under the base zoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard Lawson Hamlet

Richard Lawson

Posted
Posted
Under current zoning there is no set back requirement on Broadway and no mandatory compliance with any historical design guidelines. The developers are doing both under pressure from Jameson. I think they could, under the current Urban Zoning Overlay, demolish everything on their property and build to the sidewalk and go straight up on Broadway. They would have to adhere to the setbacks on 3rd and 4th.

Technically, it is not a variance. A variance is an exception to the base zone classification. They are asking to change the zone classification and set up their specific setbacks requirements under the SP provision.

The developer does not have the ability to agree or disagree with the overlay. It will not affect their building except as the required overlay establishment as described in clause 7. of the bill. I am still not sure how that works since the bill requires the establishment of the overlay before the bill is passed on third reading.

If you mean that they agreed with the overlay establishment being applied to everyone except them I could see why they would agree and contribute money. According to the SP bill without the establishment of an overlay there is no approved site plan. No approved site plan - no Westin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elguapo731 Whistle-Stop

elguapo731

Posted
Posted

I think the Westin will be built. This is turning into a freaking side show. If everything gets voted down from the hotel to the overlay, The developers can still proceed with what ever they like. If I were them I'd do it out of spite, but this will all pass. Westin has survived two readings already. I would be surprised if this fails since it has the support of the business owners in the neighborhood(the people that would most be affected by this) Next week we can stop talking about all this voting and start talking about final renderings and groundbreaking.... FINALLY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
franktown Hamlet

franktown

Posted
Posted

I don't have the picture, but if I find time I might be able to scan it, but on the very back page of the front page section (not the regular one, the extended section they only have on Sundays) there was a full page picture of lower Broad with the Westin (the rendering that the Council was using that was wrong because the hotel was too big) pictured. It had a message to the effect that local business owners don't want it there, and then it had the signatures of business ownders on Lower Broad. I thought it was pretty effective, but it made me mad that they used an old, wrong rendering to bolster their case against it.

PS. On the back page of the Williamson AM there was a full page ad for Signature Tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.