Author Archives: pearlgsims

FAQs about Edgehill’s Proposed NCZO


  1. Would the Edgehill Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay (NCZO) prevent me from adding a dormer to the front of my house? Under the proposed guidelines for the Edgehill NCZO, dormers can be added to both contributing and non-contributing homes. This language was added to the guidelines specifically due to residents’ concerns. The dormers would need to be reviewed by the metro historic zoning commission (MHZC).
  2. Would the Edgehill NCZO prevent me from raising the roofline of my house?  Under the proposed guidelines for the Edgehill NCZO, the roofline of side-gable historic homes can be raised by 2’.  (See draft design guidelines for ridge raises at Edgehill NCZO Design Guidelines.) Non-contributing buildings can have completely new roof forms if the end result is appropriate for the district overall.  Both types of additions would be reviewed by the MHZC.
  3. Why was the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (NCZO) selected over other types of Overlays?  The NCZO is designed for preserving historic homes in historic neighborhoods such as Edgehill. Other types of overlays are designed for other purposes, such as the contextual overlay that focuses on infill design.  The contextual overlay uses the two homes on either side to provide parameters for context. So what happens if the homes on either side of your proposed infill home are not typical of the neighborhood? There is no recourse with this a contextual overlay to build what would make sense for the district, but with the NCZO the homeowner can go to the Commission and make a case for anything they want.  There are staff members of the MHZC available to assist with planning projects, in terms of meeting the design guidelines. Another overlay considered was the Urban Design Overlay or UDO.  A UDO is used to either protect the pre-existing character of the area with appropriate infill or to create a character that would not otherwise be ensured by the development standards in the base-zoning district. A UDO could be used in the proposed overlay area, but it is typically written from scratch. Developing an overlay from scratch leaves lots of room for error and many points to be worked out between residents. Once a UDO is written, it is less flexible than an NCZO due to the ability to appeal to the Historical Commission. A historic overlay is the only type of overlay that controls demolition, thereby protecting the historic character of the neighborhood.
  4. Does it cost anything to submit plans to the Historical Commission? There is no charge to submit plans to the Historical Commission.  In addition, the MHZC can make setback determinations that can save an applicant the extra step and expense of applying to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
  5. Will it take forever for my project to be approved?  With the NCZO, the MHZC has created a list of essentially “pre-approved” projects for which staff can issue immediate Preservation Permits.  Other projects and infill projects go to the Commission that meets every month.  To ensure approval and prevent delays, staff recommends that property owners take advantage of their advice and assistance early in the process.
  6. I’m concerned that the MHZC will require me to use expensive materials.  Is that the case?  Simply replacing existing siding, roofing material, windows or doors will not even be reviewed by the MHZC, unless all are being replaced at once.  The MHZC routinely approves typical materials for new construction that you would likely want anyway, such as asphalt shingle roofing, fiber-cement lap siding and a variety of windows in a range of prices.  You will not be required to recreate any missing historic features but you certainly could if desired.  In that case, the staff may be able to find an early photograph to help guide you.
  7. What are the rules concerning outbuildings (such as garages and sheds)? Outbuildings should be situated on a lot as is historically typical for surrounding historic outbuildings, which is usually towards the rear of the lot. Generally, there should be at least twenty feet between the outbuilding and the rear of the home. Attached garages or those that have less than 20 feet of separation are appropriate for those buildings that back up to commercially zoned properties, such as South Street and the west side of Villa Place, due to their lack of traditional rear yard caused by proximity to large buildings. 
  8. Can non-contributing houses be torn down? Yes, non-contributing homes can be torn down under the overlay.
  9. Will my house decrease in market value because of the overlay? The overlay team has found no professional studies that show long-term loss of home value under historical overlays. The overwhelming majority of quality studies show that historic districts lead to increased property values in neighborhoods of all shapes and sizes. For a list of these articles see the Edgehill Coalition website at  The supposed study from Sylvan Park that showed home values dropped 20% is not a professional impact study. It was a collection of comparable sales in 2014 from a realtor in the Sylvan Park. Despite multiple requests, the study has not been made available to the team.
  10. Where can find more information about the overlay? The proposed Edgehill NCZO Guideline can be viewed at Edgehill NCZO Design Guidelines. Members of the Edgehill Neighborhood Coalition who are leading our overlay efforts will be happy to answer your questions. They are as follows: Theo Antoniadis, Rob Benshoof, Joel Dark, Joyce Harris, Karin Kalodimos, Ronnie Miller, Joyce Searcy, Janet Shands, Pearl Sims, Andrea Sullivan, and Rachel Zijlstra. You may also email the Edgehill Coalition at For expert answers, contact Robin Zeigler, Metro Historic Zoning Commission at 615-862-7970 or by email at


Edgehill Neighbors Seek Conservation Overlay to Protect 180 Year Old Neighborhood


The Edgehill Coalition was formed in late 2015 and is comprised of our neighborhoods’ non-profits and some of the churches serving Edgehill. Throughout 2016, Coalition members and other volunteers investigated tools to protect and promote our historic neighborhood. The Edgehill bear signs came about as part of these efforts. With the boundaries better defined, the Coalition led efforts for R6A conversion in early 2017. Responding to continued and frequent community concerns about the loss of historic homes and new development that wasn’t sensitive to existing architecture, a committee was formed. Numerous meetings with various Metro departments (Planning and Historic) and council members) were held, and the team investigated different zoning tools. Ultimately, a conservation overlay was determined to be the best tool. (See the timeline under a different post on this website).

Map area Determined

The Metropolitan Historical Commission created the proposed area for the conservation overlay. The area was determined based on the number of historic (or contributing) structures. All of Villa Place, parts of South Street and parts of 15th Ave South are included within the proposed overlay area.(See the map under a different post on this website).

Neighborhood Input Sought

Metro Historic Commission provided a list of addresses within the proposed boundaries. All houses in the proposed map area were provided information about the conservation overlay. Volunteers sought input from homeowners and renters from September 2017 to early 2018. The Overlay team focused the door-knocking campaign on resident homeowners. Homeowners that were FOR and AGAINST were documented. Additionally, community meetings were held, and feedback was gathered from those meetings as well. Of the 100 houses canvassed, 75% were in favor of the overlay.

Council Members

The Overlay team shared all the results with our Council Members. Additionally, a group of opponents to the overlay organized and also canvassed the neighborhood. Their results were also shared with the Council Members. Lists were consolidated, and one “vote” per household of homeowners within in the proposed overlay area, were counted. After considering all the data collected to date, the Council Members now feel that the community support FOR the overlay is more than enough to move it forward in the legislative process.

Next Steps

There will be a series of public meetings. Everyone in the proposed area will receive official notices in the mail about the meetings.



What is being proposed?

A Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (the least restrictive of all overlays) has been proposed to the area shown below.

Why do many Edgehill residents support an overlay?

Many residents believe it is the best option we have to protect what little is left of a very historic neighborhood (180 years old).  Literally, this space on the map marked above is all that is left of historic Edgehill. On a weekly basis, homes are being purchased by investors and demolished.  Many of them have a historic architectural value that can be saved.  If the proposed overlay expansion does not have the same positive results that overlay in other historic neighborhoods throughout Nashville have had, we can always fine tune or fully repeal it.  However, until we at least try it, we will continue to lose valuable pieces of our history that can never be replaced.

The history of Edgehill listed on the Edgehill Neighborhood Coalition’s website is a great resource to learn why Edgehill’s history is worth preserving.  It can be found at The Edgehill Neighborhood Coalition’s website at

How do other neighborhoods in Nashville protect their historic architecture?

There are 23 districts (and more are in the process) in Nashville that currently use some kind of zoning overlay to protect historic buildings.  The type of overlay being proposed for Edgehill is a “Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay” (the least restrictive type).  The overlay guidelines being proposed are based on national standards and are nearly identical to several of those already in use by other Nashville districts.  These core guidelines are a time-tested approach that has been finely tuned over decades to best serve our Nashville community. Neighbors will collectively define the guidelines being considered for Edgehill. Links to the guidelines for every current historic/conservation overlay in Nashville can be found on the MHZC District Boundaries and Design Guidelines page.

Click here for an article by Belmont-Hillsboro Neighbors describing why a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay overlay was important to them.

How does historic zoning typically affect property values?

The overwhelming majority of quality studies show that historic districts lead to increased property values in neighborhoods of all shapes and sizes. Below are several studies supporting this conclusion. For links to these articles please email

Benefits of Residential Historic District Designation for Property Owners
Historic Districts Are Good for Your Pocketbook: The Impact of Local Historic Districts on House Prices in South Carolina
Profiting From The Past: The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Georgia
Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Georgia, A Study of Three Communities: Athens, Rome, and Tifton
The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development
Gracing the Land of Elvis and Beale Street: Historic Designation and Property Values in Memphis 
The Making of a Historic District and the Economic Impact upon Housing Value: An Empirical Analysis of the Tree Streets Neighborhood in Johnson City, Tennessee
An Impact Study of Local Historic District Overlays on Property Values in Fayette County, KY
The Impacts of Historic District Designation in Washington, D.C
The Impact of Local Historic Designation on Residential Property Values
The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation Districts – A Case Study of Indianapolis Neighborhoods
Connecticut Local Historic Districts and Property Values
Measuring Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation
Historic Preservation and Residential PropertyValues: An Analysis of Texas Cities
The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values
The Impact of Historic District Designation on Property Values
Historic Preservation Economic Benefits Report in Colorado

How would the overlay limit what I can do with my property?

If your house is within the proposed overlay boundaries the following types of changes would require review by requesting a Preservation Permit from the Metro Historic Zoning Commission (MHZC):

  • New Construction – This includes houses, garages, large storage buildings, carports, etc.
  • Changes to Existing Structures – Only changes that are listed below and are visible from the public right of way require a Preservation Permit.
    • Additions – Increasing the footprint, height, or building envelope.  This also includes dormers, skylights, chimneys, porches, etc.
    • Demolitions – In whole or in part.
    • Relocations – Moving a large/permanent structure.
    • Setback Reductions

The following types of changes would not require review:

  • Changes not visible from the public right of way.
  • Repairs or minor changes to existing structures.  Examples include…
    • Replacing siding, windows, or doors.
    • Painting
    • Adding or replacing exterior lighting.
  • Appurtenances – Fences, walls, paving, streetlights, curb cuts, sidewalks, driveways, gravel, fountains, etc.
  • Storage Sheds – Buildings used primarily for storage that are less that 100 sq. ft., without a permanent foundation, and that are not hooked up to utilities.
  • Temporary structures without a permanent foundation that are erected for 90 days or less.
  • Signage

All the information about neighborhood conservation overlays is available at

As currently proposed, work that requires a permit would be approved based on the guidelines listed on this site. However, that does NOT mean that adhering strictly to every guideline is required.  The MHZC often approves projects that do not strictly meet every guideline, especially in cases where the homeowners’ needs cannot be met within the guidelines.  In fact, the guidelines even explicitly state that demolishing any structure is appropriate when it will prevent an economic hardship (page 23).

The primary factor that determines how guidelines are considered for a specific structure is whether or not it is considered “contributing”.  The MHZC Handbook defines “contributing” and “non-contributing” as follows:

‘contributing’, meaning they contribute to the historic character of the district; or
‘non-contributing,’ which means that they do not contribute because of age,
condition and/or alterations.

In our neighborhood, Craftsman Bungalows and Victorian homes are typically considered “contributing”.  Homes newer than 1945 are typically considered “non-contributing”.  Many of the guidelines do not apply for “non-contributing” structures since they do not have the historical character that the overlay is intended to preserve.

If you would like to know whether or not your home is considered “contributing”, or have any specific questions about the types of changes that would or would not be approved under the overlay, Historic Zoning Administrator Robin Zeigler is always happy to answer specific answer questions via email ( or phone (862-7970).

 Who do I contact for additional information about Edgehill’s pursuit an overlay?

Members of the Edgehill Neighborhood Coalition are working on this project are as follows: Theo Antoniadis, Rob Benshoof, Joel Dark, Joyce Harris, Karin Kalodimos, Ronnie Miller, Joyce Searcy, Janet Shands, Pearl Sims, Andrea Sullivan, and Rachel Zijlstra. You may also email the Edgehill Coalition at


How to get involved in land use policies for Edgehill via the Planning Commission

The Planning Department’s responsibilities include working with local communities to create appropriate land-use policies and transportation priorities in community plans, making recommendations to the Planning Commission on zoning decisions, and providing design services and citywide transportation planning to implement sustainable development and complete streets.

The Planning Department is located at 800 Second Avenue South in downtown Nashville, one block north of the 2nd/4th Avenue exit off I-40.

Planning Commission Meetings, Deadlines and Hearings

The Planning Commission meets at 4 pm on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month in the auditorium of the Howard Office Building, 700 Second Avenue South.

Only one meeting may be held in December.

2018 Planning Commission filing deadlines and meeting schedule

2017 Planning Commission filing deadlines and meeting schedule

2018 Council hearing schedule

2017 Council hearing schedule

Directions to the meeting room and the Planning Department office

The Commission’s meetings are shown live on Comcast cable channel 3 in Davidson County and repeated several times on an irregular Metro Nashville Network broadcast schedule. Meetings are also streamed live on the Metro government access channel’s webpage and posted on the Planning Department’s YouTube channel.

Members of the Planning Commission

Email the Commissioners

Upcoming Meetings

The draft agenda, staff reports, and related documents are posted around midday on the Friday before each meeting.

Please email the Planning Department front counter or call (615) 862-7190 with questions about agenda items.

Rules & Procedures


Conservation Overlay Kick-off Meeting- Held Sept. 6th Midtown Police Precinct

Kick-off Meeting:  The offical kick-off meeting regarding our conservation overlay exploration was Sept. 6th at 6:00 p.m.  at the Midtown Police Precinct.  The agenda included explanations from our neighborhood leaders about what a conservation overlay is, discussions with our Council Members O’Conners and Sledge, and an exploration of next steps. Below is background information about Edgehill’s desire to protect our historic neighborhood.

Background: A number of historic homes in Edgehilll have already been demolished and others are threatened. To explore ways of protecting the 150 years of history in Edgehill several members of the Edgehill Coalition met with the History Commission staff member, Robin Zeiglar on May 22, 2017.  Those in attendance included Theo Antoniadis, Rob Benshoof, Joel Dark, Joyce Harris,  Ronnie Miller,  Janet Shands, and Pearl Sims.

The group discussed what type of overlays might make sense for neighborhood and how the concepts should be introduced to the neighborhood. They will likely pursue Neighborhood Conservation for the area that qualifies and UDO for the areas that do not.

The group has met several times to discuss the possibility of a neighborhood-wide meeting to introduce the concepts and then decide on next steps. They may try both UDO and NCZO at the same time.

An architectural resource survey is needed. They will likely want MHZC to train survey volunteers rather than hire a consultant. The group is working from a large map showing boundaries of the following: Music Row Code, South Music Row NZCO, area eligible for an Edgehill NCZO, area of potential UDO and the Envision Edgehill project.

There is interest in involving the Envision Edgehill MDHA project with the overall plan for the neighborhood.

Below are resources provided by the Historic Commission for use by the neighborhood as they explore ways to protect the history, culture, and diversity of Edgehill.

Overview of Neighborhood Conservation Zoning
Wording borrowed from the Belmont-Hillsboro Neighbor’s, Inc. Website

What is Neighborhood Conservation Zoning (NCZO)?

  • NCZO is a planning tool to protect the historic character of Nashville’s old neighborhoods through a design review process.
  • It is a type of ‘overlay zoning’ that is applied in addition to the ‘base’ land use zoning of an area.
  • An NCZO must be passed by Metro Council and signed by the mayor.

How would NCZO impact changes I want to make to my home?

NCZOs do not impact permitted land uses. Instead, it regulates you, the property owner, when you are planning to:  BRAD

  • Build a new building (primary or secondary, like a garage),
  • Relocate a building.
  • Add to an existing building (enclose or add a porch, add a roof dormer, add solar panels or skylights, add habitable space), or
  • Demolish a building (in whole or in part, such as removing window and door openings or all materials),

Why might we want a NCZO for 12South?

A NCZO protects a neighborhood from:

  • loss of architecturally or historically important buildings,
  • new construction not in character with the neighborhood, and
  • additions to buildings that would lessen their architectural compatibility.

How does NCZO work?

If your property is within a NCZO and you are planning to demolish a building, construct a new building, add to an existing building, or move a building, one step is added to the process of getting a building permit for the work: you must also obtain a preservation permit from the Metropolitan Historical Zoning Commission (MHZC). There are no additional permit fees.

Are there guidelines homeowners would have to follow?

Yes, design guidelines would be created jointly by the neighborhood and the MHZC. These would be used in the following ways:

  • to determine the architectural compatibility of proposed projects,
  • to provide direction for property owners who want to undertake a project,
  • to ensure that the decisions of the MHZC are not arbitrary, and
  • to assure that new construction and additions are sympathetic to the character of a neighborhood and to restrict the loss of architecturally contributing buildings.

By state and local law, all guidelines must be in accordance with the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings design principles used by private and public preservation agencies throughout the country. These can be found at

With NCZO are interior projects reviewed?

No, only exterior work which is determined to be visible from the public rights-of-way is reviewed by the MHZC.

With NCZO, are exterior paint colors, fences, landscaping, and interior projects reviewed?

No, only new construction, additions, demolition, and relocation are reviewed in NCZOs. However, in a historic preservation zoning district, all exterior work — including projects like replacing doors and windows, or installing a fence — are reviewed by the MHZC.

Where are the current NCZO districts in Nashville?


  • Maxwell Heights
  • Park and Elkins
  • Richland-West End
  • Richland-West End Addition
  • Salemtown

·      South Music Row

·      Woodland-in-Waverly


To see the design guidelines for the neighborhoods above, visit:

More Information

To see  a potential design guidelines for our neighborhood, visit:

Existing design guidelines can be viewed here:

The Commission’s  general brochure that covers the type of historic overlays can be found here:,%202010.pdf

Waverly-Belmont may be the best example for us but it will be tweaked to meet the specific character of Edgehill, which will be determined by the survey. See link below.


Our Conatact with Historic Zonng Commission

Robin Zeigler, Historic Zoning Administrator , Metro Historic Zoning Commission Sunnyside in Sevier Park (3000 Granny White Pike), Nashville, TN 37204

Main Office  615-862-7970 x 79776

Edgehill Opposes Belmont University’s Building Indoor Batting Facility and Office at ES Rose Park Updates- Communications with CM Sledge

Letter to Council Members Signing Ordinance

August 17, 2017

Council Member Burkley Allen
Council Member John Cooper

Council Member Colby Sledge

Dear Council Members Allen, Cooper, and Sledge:

Following on recent community meetings, we are writing to restate our objection to the proposed construction of an indoor batting facility by Belmont University in E.S. Rose Park and to call for the rescindment of the associated Metro ordinance (BL2017-662).

The opposition to this proposed project within our Coalition remains strong and consistent. The lease amendment supported by BL2017-662 provides public park land to a private institution on terms far below market rate and, by allowing the construction of a two-story building on this land, irrevocably surrenders an important scenic and historic resource of our neighborhood and the city.

We are also deeply concerned about the process through which the lease amendment was advanced. The 2007 lease agreement includes a commitment to ongoing, reciprocal communication with the Edgehill community regarding the lease arrangement. Amending the lease without consultation of, or even accurate notification to, the Edgehill community clearly violates this commitment.

We value the connections between Belmont University and the Edgehill neighborhood that have developed both within and outside the framework of 2007 lease agreement. We are committed to the further development of Edgehill’s relationship with Belmont and seek in the rescinding of the lease amendment an opportunity to continue and renew this relationship on a genuinely mutual basis, working together toward truly common goals.

Above all, we seek in the rescinding of BL2017-662 an opportunity to work with Metro Parks toward a strategic plan for E.S. Rose Park that recognizes its central importance to our neighborhood’s history and future. Our Coalition is actively working with numerous city agencies in vital planning activities throughout Edgehill, and the stewardship of E.S. Rose Park is inseparable from this work of envisioning carefully, creatively, and ambitiously the future of our historic, diverse, and rapidly growing neighborhood.

Signed by Residents of Edgehill


Background of the Letter

Report for the Edgehill Neighborhood Coalition on the E.S. Rose Park Meeting at Belmont University

August 1, 2017 

As discussed at the July 20 meeting of the Edgehill Neighborhood Coalition, we attended a meeting at Belmont University on Tuesday, July 25, to discuss a revised proposal for the construction an indoor batting facility in E. S. Rose Park. The meeting was convened by Council Member Sledge following the larger meeting he had called at the Midtown Hills Police Precinct Building on Thursday, June 22, at which strong and consistent community opposition to this project was expressed.
The Belmont meeting began with a presentation of the revised proposal followed by about two hours of discussion. The revised proposal responds to a concern expressed by property owners on the northern side of Rose Park by moving the proposed building back from the property line to the park’s northeast parking lot. This would also avoid the removal of trees and the loss of existing green space.
As at the June meeting, the discussion of the proposal ranged from practical concerns to issues of process and principle. In terms of its obstruction of the view from the park to the east (including the view of Fort Negley) and the loss of parking access protected by the original lease agreement, the proposed new location is even less desirable than the site previously suggested. This led to some consideration, at least among the Edgehill group, of whether the proposed building could be relocated to the northwest parking lot and/or reduced to a one-story building (minus the Belmont offices).
Discussion of process and principles at the meeting mostly revisited points made previously. The most important of these was the lack of consultation with, or even accurate notification to, the Edgehill community prior to the submission of the lease amendment to the Metro Council. We continue to regard this as especially problematic in light of the history of our relationship with Belmont and the communication/good-faith clauses of the original Rose Park lease agreement.
One new development at the meeting was the suggestion by some community members that space for indoor baseball practice be incorporated into Metro Parks’ planned redevelopment/expansion of the Easley Center from a “Neighborhood” classification to the kind of “Regional” facility serving Hadley, Sevier, Coleman, and other parks. It was not clear if Belmont would support this idea, and we would also need to present it to the Coalition, but joint advocacy for this facility might help to build a genuinely mutual partnership with Belmont toward a truly common goal.
We value the relationship with Belmont that has developed within the framework of the original lease agreement. The amendment, however, far exceeds the purview of this agreement and violates its spirit. The amendment leases public land to a private institution on terms far below market rate and, by allowing the construction of a building on this land, irrevocably surrenders an important scenic resource of the neighborhood and the city.
We strongly recommend that the Edgehill Neighborhood Coalition call for the repeal of the lease amendment and work with Metro Parks toward a strategic vision for E.S. Rose Park informed by neighborhood and community interests. We acknowledge the potential appeal of shorter-term “fixes,” including alternatives that we considered at the meeting, but these are responses to an unanticipated and unfortunate situation rather than a positive plan for the park. Careful stewardship of E.S. Rose Park clearly falls within the responsibilities and capabilities of our Coalition, which has also proved to be a reliable partner for the city and for institutions adjacent to our neighborhood. We believe that discussions going forward should be conducted within this framework, and we recognize the present moment as critical – both to protect what remains of the park as a natural community resource and to realize its future potential.
Members of the Edgehill Coalition Rose Park Team
Joel Dark
Gigi Gaskins
King Hollands
Ronnie Miller
Ben Tran

Response to the Letter from CM Sledge

September 11, 2017

Re: E.S. Rose Park

Dear Edgehill residents and Belmont University leaders,

As many of you know, we have had continued conversations regarding Belmont University’s ground lease for E.S. Rose Park and, in particular, a recent amendment allowing construction of a proposed batting facility for Belmont’s use. These concerns originated with a previous lease that is nearly a decade old.

In 2007, the Metro Council approved an Ordinance allowing the Metropolitan Parks director to enter a lease agreement with Belmont for the use of Rose Park. A lease was subsequently executed on November 5, 2007. Under the lease agreement, Belmont was permitted to construct athletic facilities within the park for use by its sports teams, though the park was also to be made available for public use. The lease provided that Belmont would construct the athletic facilities on the property, as well as a concessions building, locker rooms and improvements to the common areas — all at its own expense. The cost of these improvements was estimated at $7 million dollars. Based on the most recent report provided this week by the Parks Department, Belmont’s financial investment to date totals more than $9.7 million, including $1.2 million in scholarships to residents of Edgehill and nearby communities.

Metro retained the authority to schedule dates and times of Belmont’s use of the park, and Belmont was to provide six months advance notice of its needs. Though Belmont was given certain priorities, it was estimated that the sports fields would be available to the community for public use at least 80 percent of the time during regular park hours. Current data from Parks indicates that Belmont has used the soccer facilities 22 percent of the time it has been available over the last 12 months; baseball, 14 percent; softball, 10 percent; and track, 9 percent.

The term of the lease was for 40 years, but under the terms of the lease, termination can occur upon one year’s written notice by either party. However, if Metro acts to terminate the lease, Metro would be required to pay Belmont the fair value of the added improvements.

In May of this year, the Council approved an amendment to the original lease agreement allowing Belmont to construct an additional improvement on the Rose Park property, specifically an 80×120 square foot building abutting the baseball field which would serve primarily as a batting cage facility. In exchange, Belmont would increase its annual lease payment by $5,000 to be divided proportionately between Metro Parks Department, Rose Park Middle School, and Carter Lawrence Elementary School.

In the ensuing months since the Council’s approval of that amendment, concerns have arisen in the community regarding the location and use of this additional facility, prompting several meetings and lengthy negotiations with Belmont University’s administration. While those discussions were conducted in good faith by all parties, I must reluctantly report that the concerns raised by the community have not been adequately addressed by Belmont, and that we have reached no compromise or solution.

As a result, I explored filing legislation calling for the Metropolitan Council to rescind its previous approval of the amendment. Upon working toward drafting this resolution, however, I was notified by Belmont legal representatives, Metro Legal representatives and Metro Council legal counsel that the road to repealing this amendment may be nearly impossible without repealing the entire lease. This is a course I don’t believe any party is suggesting, nor would I support, due in no small part to the provision that would require Metro to reimburse Belmont for improvements to the park.

In ongoing discussions with Belmont representatives and Edgehill representatives, I have secured a commitment from Belmont that the school will not move on any sort of construction for the rest of 2017. I have heard from Edgehill representatives that they desire Belmont’s active involvement in Envision Edgehill. I believe this request is reasonable and would result in better outcomes for Edgehill’s future.

Regarding the batting facility, I must ask all parties to continue to work together to determine a mutually beneficial outcome. I continue to seek community input regarding this decision and I welcome your questions and comments.


Colby Sledge

Metro Council, District 17

Edgehill leads Tony Rose Park Re-Development

Below is a summary of events that led to redevelopment of Tony Rose Park (submittd by Rachel Zijlstra, EVNA)
BACKGROUND:  Without any community involvement or notice, Metro Parks has entered into a 1 year lease of Tony Rose Park.  During this time, the developers who are redeveloping the old CMA building will use the bulk of the park as a construction staging zone.  After the year, the developers have pledged to repair damage and improve the park with a budget of $90,000.  I’ve attached their proposal.
PROBLEM:  There are many, many issues related to the “deal” that Metro Parks made, namely that it’s no deal for Edgehill.  While we can appreciate that Parks oversees the greenspace, the lack of community input or even notice cannot stand.  The plan for redeveloping the park after its use (abuse) isn’t consistent with what neighbors want.  Lastly, EVNA and other Edgehill leaders worked with those very same developers in negotiations as part of the S/P process for the old CMA building.  They know who we are and how to contact us.  While $90,000 may seem like a lot of money, it’ll make very little difference in restoring our park.  (Reference:  the sidewalks and swing area at Flora Wilson Park cost $80,000 5 years ago).
ACTION PLAN:  A series of meetings have been conducted by RachelZijlstra, EVNA,  and Ronnie Miller, ONE. to gain our neighborhood’s input into the park situation. Through this meeting the Panattoni and Kim Hawkins, Hawkins Partners, have been working to help the neighborhood envision an new park that will be built with their support.
Report from  Kim Hawkins, Hawkins Partners, August 23rd.
FIRST, Panattoni has looked carefully at construction staging and was able to reduce the area for staging from 65% of the park to 35% of the park allowing a much larger area to remain open. (see attached)
Overall reception to the plan was very positive.
Cul-de-sac:  One of the biggest impacts to the park was recovering park space (approximately 6300 s.f.) with the use of the cul-de-sac.  The cup-de-sac then gets used for children’s plan (four square or kick ball) or with adults for street hockey.  Plans would be to work with Metro  Parks and/or Oasis Center to develop cup-de-sac art utilizing youth from the neighborhood to help design and paint it.   This concept was discussed with Mark Sturtevant, MPW< on Monday evening, Aug 14 when I ran into him at a Metro Council minority caucus meeting.  I did relay this to Freddie O’Connell.
Pavilion/Stage:  The plan suggests moving the location for the pavilion to an area between the existing playground and the new activated cup-de-sac.  The pavilion could double as a stage for small community music or festival events and is now oriented to a large open play area and provides better visibility into the pavilion from Music Circle and better visibility to the most active play areas (playground, cul-de-sac play and small multi-purpose field).  The suggested structure would be a Poligon or similar structure with a shed roof which opens to the open lawn.  After discussion, a solid metal roof is preferred.  Two moveable painted wood picnic tables were noted within the pavilion.
1/4 mile loop:  The park plan utilizes the existing walkway near the existing playground area and extends the walk with to 8’ wide for new concrete walkway to form a 1/4 mile loop that can be used for walking and also for children’s bicycling.  The new walk also corrects the stair entry from Music Circle and provides for an ADA access from Music Circle.  A bike repair station with tools and air was also noted just off the loop which could serve families in the neighborhood and is a very short detour from the nearby Music Row protected bike lanes,
Playground:  an option was shown which added some additional playground equipment in the area south of the existing play structure and still within the play structure surfacing.  Based on review, it appears that area could accommodate either one alternative swing structure or several smaller structures.  Some fabric shades were also noted.  This element had the most discussion about whether it was necessary to add play equipment to the area.  The fabric shade would be discussed with Parks as there may be concerns with long term maintenance.  HPI will incorporate these elements for pricing and a final determination can be made later.
Music play:  Several elements of music play (approximately 3 pieces) would be located within the area where the existing gazebo is now (it is planned to be removed).  This would be an area for music play with elements such as drums, xylophone, etc.  This bring the element of Music Row back into the park and is consistent with the influence of Tony Rose as a music leader and founding board of the Nashville Symphony.  The interpretive sign for Tony Rose would also be int his area of the park.
Site furniture:  Two existing concrete tables and the existing grill were to remain,  The plan suggested adding 5 new benches and several waste cans.  The community requested center arm rests for any benchesTwo existing dog waste stations remain, though one is relocated to the north end of the park. A water fountain (with dog bowl and water filler) is added off of an existing water line anticipated to be off of Hawkins St.  Provide one yard hydrant off of this line as well.
Multi-purpose field:  The loop walk on the north side is placed to allow for room for a small multi-use field within in.  This area and the open play lawn are both to be noted to receive some minimal regrading to eliminate the compaction from previous construction staging done by other parties and to eliminate ruts.  Plans call for an extension of a chain link fence on the north boundary of the park.
Shade trees:  Add shade trees especially in the northern parts of the park with limited tree canopy right now.  Trees should have gator bags to assist in watering.
There was discussion about a dog park and it was noted that if a dog park were included, it would occupy the area currently slated for the multi-purpose field and may impede the 1/4 mile loop path.  It also is a very small area.  Many of the community comments noted a place to dog walk, therefore the addition of the loop path, dog water bowl and related dog waste stations were added.  General consensus seems to be to keep the plan as shown.
1. HPI to review plans with Parks.  It is evident that the costs for improvements currently noted would exceed th original costs proposed by Panattoni.
2. HPI to provide narrative for the plans to allow for Panattoni to pull together initial concept pricing.  HPI to have plans with narrative to Panattoni by end of the is week (cc Tim Netsch with all plans)
3. Panattoni has committed to make asks of other contractors that have used the park previously for staging without permission as well as making asks of some music-related businesses.
4. Parks to review plans and make contact with the Tony Rose family about potential additional gifts.
The next meeting will be Sept. 6 at 5:00 at Midtown Police Precinct (right before the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay meeting).
A special note: CM Freddie O’Connell has been very engaged with all of us during this process. Thank you, Councilman!