Design Review Committee split over metal arbor design, signage at Harpeth Square courtyard

The Franklin City Design Review Committee on Jan. (date not specified) discussed a proposed metal arbor at the Harpeth Square courtyard entrance at 159 First Avenue North, where the applicant presented two metal designs and a proposed emblem-type sign.

The committee and staff said the site-specific context — the arbor sits about 100–220 feet back from Main Street and Second Avenue North — makes material and visibility questions central to whether the feature fits the historic district. Elizabeth, a city historic-preservation staff member, told the committee that "site and setting alterations should be considered as appropriate when they are undertaken in locations that are not visible from public view, do not involve the removal of historic features, and do not detract from or overwhelm the context of the historic districts." She said the proposal remains visible from public rights of way and that the signage proposed is not a sign type supported by the zoning ordinance.

Brandon Priddy, the applicant's designer with ArcTex, said the design team refined earlier concepts to "soften the whole feel," reducing some of the heavier monitor-like details and changing curvature and steel articulation. The applicant showed two options with the same overall height and footprint but different inlay patterns; Option 2 was described by staff as a more simplified design that would "detract less from the surroundings." Committee members split: some preferred Option 1 for its detailing, others preferred the simpler Option 2.

Committee discussion touched repeatedly on the sign embedded in the arbor. Members noted the zoning ordinance does not list the proposed emblem as an approved sign type and that the city currently lacks a guideline-specific sign exception to override zoning. Several members suggested decoupling the structure and any emblem so the committee could consider the arbor form on its merits and let staff and the zoning administrator pursue sign approvals separately. One member said that, while the previously approved wooden pergola is a simpler, more traditional choice, the existence of a similar metal arched entrance nearby was argued by others as precedent for a metal solution.

No formal vote or action was taken. Staff advised the applicant that the DRC’s feedback represented preferences rather than binding guidance and encouraged the owner to pursue a formal Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) at a voting meeting if they wish to proceed. The committee asked the applicant to coordinate further with staff on the signage approach, to bring clearer historic images if any exist, and to be prepared to present the arbor with the sign decoupled should they return for a COA.

The committee did not provide a definitive approval and declined to indicate how members might vote at a formal hearing.