Michael and Melissa Brooks returned to Planning last week with a revised application to add tourist lodging at 159 Spring St. At the May 14 meeting, the commission rejected a plan to cut several large trees, including a large pecan in the center of the lot.
Melissa Brooks explained that her architect reduced the size of the buildings and moved them to save the pecan tree.
Two speakers who had opposed the project in May renewed their objections, although both had fewer complaints with the current proposal. Mark Hughes owns the property below the site, and welcomed the “spirit of compromise” which will considerably lessen the impact on his property. He still had concerns about traffic safety and the “relic” of a sewer system. Steve Beacham also thanked the Brookses, although he questioned the adequacy of the parking, and wondered where a dumpster might be situated.
The Brookses had originally asked for two larger units of tourist lodging, with the possibility of adding more in the future. The revised plan calls for adding two small buildings for tourist lodging to the site, along with a two-bedroom cottage for themselves.
Some commissioners still had questions about the trees, especially the pecan. Commissioner James Mitchell said construction and grading the lot might still threaten that tree, and commissioners rejected a proposed wooden deck they thought might encroach upon the tree’s drip line. Mitchell complimented the Brookses for their revised application. “I’m proud of you for your attempt to address the issues,” he said, and everyone voted in favor of the plan.
- John and Danielle Monroe received permission to remove several trees at 10 College St. John Monroe said two pine trees, covered in ivy, lean toward the house. Commissioner Fergie Stewart said he had visited the property, and those trees are dying. A tree in the backyard is growing in a low part of the yard, and correcting drainage problems will require removing the tree.
- Kate Wicker requested a sign variance for the Grand Central Hotel. She showed pictures of an existing sign measuring 12 sq. ft., and asked to increase it to 40 sq. ft. Code allows only 12 sq. ft. on each face of a building. Wicker said the regulation sign “gets really lost on that wall.” She promised a “pretty fabulous” sign, and said the hotel would only have signs on two of its three faces.
Mitchell pointed out that a large sign facing North Main St. identifies the hotel. He made his opposition clear. “Sign, sign, everywhere a sign,” he said, adding that he did not think a sign would improve the beautiful building. “The building speaks for itself,” he said. “I don’t see changing a well-spoken ordinance for this.”
The other commissioners agreed with Mitchell, and Sallee explained the appeal to circuit court process.
Planning will meet next on July 23, with a workshop scheduled for July 17. Several topics have appeared repeatedly in recent meetings. These items appeared on last week’s agenda, but Sallee asked to postpone them until new commissioners come to the table. The commission will continue to address the definition of “on-site” as it pertains to bed-and-breakfast managers. They will consider an ordinance to restrict fundraising car washes to the site of commercial car washes, for environmental reasons. They will also continue working on a revised tree ordinance.