RECENT COMMENTS
city council agenda for Jan.26
The City Council agenda for Jan.26 includes dueling resolutions to affirm or reverse both CAR’s decision to deny the last design proposed for Oakwood Heights and also to deny the installation of a cast iron front yard fence and a bracketed door hood at 2720 East Broad Street.
Res. No. 2009-R6 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To affirm the
decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** DGM
Properties, Inc., to construct a 33-unit condominium project on the
properties known as 3618-3626 East Broad Street and 3609-3611 East
Marshall Street ***.
Res. No. 2009-R7 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To reverse
the decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** DGM
Properties, Inc., to construct a 33-unit condominium project on the
properties known as 3618-3626 East Broad Street and 3609-3611 East
Marshall Street ***.
Res. No. 2009-R8 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To affirm the
decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** the
installation of a cast iron front yard fence and a bracketed door hood on the
property known as 2720 East Broad Street.
Res. No. 2009-R9 (Patron: President Graziano, By Request) – To reverse
the decision of the Commission of Architectural Review denying *** the
installation of a cast iron front yard fence and a bracketed door hood on the
property known as 2720 East Broad Street.
TAGGED: city council
CAR appeals will not be heard on 1/26. Carried on agenda routinely, but the appeals will be first heard by Land Use Cmte on 2/17 and should come to council on 2/23.
The situation with 2720 E. Broad concerns the backwards thinking of C.A.R. and their misinterpretation of the NPS Guidelines. They need to be reviewed and changed within our local C.A.R. to be more inline with other historic city’s versions.
It will be interesting to see how the issue of 2720 E. Broad will play. This, of course, is the house of would-be Council member Jennie Dotts.
I imagine this would be an awkward time in the scheme of things to get up and call the members of CAR jackasses, which is pretty much how she has labeled them so far. Will we see an unusually refreshing new degree of diplomacy from Mrs. Dotts, or will she once again rise to the occasion and talk down from her lofty position of “Old House Authority?”
You don’t have to be a Jennie Dotts fan or foe to realize that the CAR is outside its authority in some of these cases, especially 3618 E. Broad.
Ron, I’m curious as to your thinking on post #4 – how is CAR outside of their authority on that area of East Broad Street? I think there are some residents down there who are glad that, so far, CAR has not allowed those condos to be approved. At least, that’s the impression I’ve gotten, if it’s incorrect then I’ll correct my understanding.
Bill – yes, it will be interesting to see what transpires. It would be rather an awkward time to be undiplomatic!
I am not the Ron in post #5, but I’d love to see the condos go in at 3618 East Broad St. Living across from Chimborazo Park, we need something to start the ball rolling for renovations. Viewing all the drawings, it appears to me to be a high-end development. We need more people down this way to promote renovation, and I think this would be a great start. There are so many run down houses behind me on the 3400 block of East Marshall Street and so on.
In my opinion this would be a great start in getting more people interested in this part of church hill. The name of the development is what I hate, y can’t it be called Chimborazo condos, or Chimborazo Mews. etc.
I did want to say again, I’m not the Ron in post # 5.
I am the poster #5. Sorry I’m slow getting back. Tha CAR was told by staff in August and again in November that the project met city standards for density, based on the underlying zoning. They were told that density was outside their authoroity in makin g a decision on the application. In spite of that, CAR choose to deny the application because of density issues.
Thanks for the clarification, Ron of post 5. And to the other Ron!
car has a duty to review the development at the east end of broad st, for among other things, compatibility with the historic pattern of development, which it is not. no matter many times flynn’s gang says the density is good with zoning, the car determines if it is compatible with the historic pattern of development.
is the dott’s porch/fence alteration as significant as the demolition of a historic building? flynn’s gang demolishes more buildings in historic districts than anyone the city and the car turns a blind eye. that is where the credibility is lost.