The corner of Elizabeth Place and Starnes Ave. as it appears today.

Developer's rendering of the proposed buildings.


Have you looked closely at the plans of the proposed development? I
attended the recent HRC meeting and was astounded at the comparison of what
is being considered and what the written HRC rules allow. The grading plan
calls for a 19' high retaining wall at the rear and many loads of fill dirt
to bring the buildings up to address the street where they will present 2
identical 2-story facades that will dwarf the remaining homes on the street
and will appear to be one long building when approaching the site. Scale is
what is sorely missing from the plans. It will also create an "island"
that will be in the middle of a street scape that slopes naturally from
street to stream in the rear (a fall of about 45' if I remember correctly)
on which the 22 units will "perch". All the tree removal (some that also
violate the HRC rules), the amount of grading and fill, and the scale of
the buildings clearly violate the HRC rules and regulations. Furthermore,
if more is needed, the "footprint" of the two buildings will cover much of
the surface area of the lots, a much higher ratio of building-to-land than
most multi-family buildings in Montford. Check and see what the front and
side setbacks will be. Honestly, I don't understand why the committee is
even considering this proposal as presented.

Once the HRC makes an exception for one permit, it creates a slippery slope
for all future applicants to exploit; a precedent is created and used to
justify more and more exceptions. Please check into the details of this
proposed project before making generalizations. This development could be
reasonably attractive compared to some mulfi-family buildings were it
located in downtown or a suburban neighborhood where there are similar
buildings of size and scale, but here on Elizabeth Place and Starnes? I
beg to differ. I think our neighbors that are protesting this proposed
development have just cause and should be actively supported.

Robert Glenn