Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic zoning commission disapproves 2711 Belmont Boulevard addition over massing and height concerns
Summary
After extended debate over scale, ridge height, and measurement methods, commissioners voted to disapprove the proposed rear addition and outbuilding at 2711 Belmont Boulevard, citing concerns that the taller portion should be pulled away from the historic house and wall heights lowered to align with the original structure.
The Metro Historic Zoning Commission voted to disapprove the proposed rear addition and outbuilding at 2711 Belmont Boulevard after extended discussion about the proposal's massing, ridge height and measurement standards. Staff recommended approval with a package of conditions including revised drawings to ensure the outbuilding's ridge and eave heights do not exceed the historic house and that dormer faces set back at least 2 feet; several commissioners said the project as presented amounted to a substantially new project rather than a modest addition.
Commissioner Jones urged disapproval, saying, "I would vote for full disapproval because I think this is recreating a whole project on the fly." Staff had flagged the taller portion of the addition and recommended it be pulled away from the historic house and lowered in wall height to align with the existing structure. Homeowner Jim Simpson said the owners were seeking a variance for the wall height to obtain interior headroom, adding they were willing to accept other staff conditions. Public commenter Elizabeth Williams urged strict application of the Belmont Hillsborough overlay and provided measurements: "approximately 1,957 square feet for the historic house and 1,603 square feet for the proposed addition," and asked the commission to deny the two-foot ridge increase.
After a motion to disapprove the application, the commission voted in favor of disapproval. Staff and commissioners discussed next steps: the disapproval does not prevent the applicant from submitting a revised application, and staff suggested applicants return with substantive changes rather than incremental edits. The commission also referenced procedural questions about how outbuildings are measured relative to primary houses and directed staff to consider bringing options to a future work session on measurement methodology.
The disapproval was procedural and technical: commissioners asked for clearer drawings and confirmed that an applicant may refile a revised design if they wish to pursue the project again.
