Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Change Of Occupancy Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Change-of-occupancy renovations at 234 4th Ave N prompt code-driven accessibility changes and demolition discussion
Summary
Harpeth Architects said converting 234 4th Ave North from residential to a commercial office triggers code-required accessibility upgrades and other modifications; the applicant asked the DRC for input on a dormer and the potential demolition of a noncontributing accessory structure while staff outlined demolition criteria and recommended dormer placement off the ridge.
Representatives for Harper (Daniel Kiedis and team) told the commission the project at 234 4th Avenue North is being transitioned from residential to commercial for owner-occupied office use. Kiedis said many proposed alterations are code-driven by the change of occupancy, including an accessible route, widening the rear entrance, new mechanical screening and an accessible ramp or landing. The team also sought early feedback on a proposed shed dormer to increase upper-level office space and on whether demolition of an existing accessory structure (ADU) would be appropriate.
Staff explained the site is a c.1935 minimal‑traditional/Tudor-influenced building and reviewed guideline considerations: the dormer should typically be removed from the main ridge (but lowering it may reduce slope below 3:12; a metal roof may be acceptable if slope is <3:12), siding reveal should match adjacent historic buildings, and mechanical units must be screened. Staff also noted the accessory structure appears historic by age on older maps but was listed as noncontributing in the 2018 National Register survey; one of the three demolition criteria must be satisfied for approval and the commission should consider integrity and redevelopment impacts.
Commissioners discussed the balance of retaining character while meeting code requirements triggered by change of occupancy. Some members cautioned that demolition could preclude future accessory development on an available rear buildable area; others noted if lifting or significant structural remediation is required the new building could be more practical. Commissioners asked applicants to consider dormer visibility, pull dormers down off the ridge where visible, provide siding reveal and detail revisions, and present mechanical screening solutions. Staff asked for lighting and fixture specifications and for documentation on screening for new condensers.
Next steps: applicant to refine dormer tie‑in to the ridge, supply siding reveal and material details, provide mechanical screening plans and, if pursuing demolition of the accessory building, submit the required demolition criteria and structural documentation for commission review.
