I am always suspect when a group of property developers have their hands in establishing property or neighborhood guidelines. Especially since these guidelines will act to influence the profits that the developers will be able to obtain from new construction projects. I specifically refer to Steering Committee Findings: 1. Subarea 1: B. Height: The fourth point down referring to the low lying areas east of Peters Street,which include three acres of land currently owned by the railroad,but up for sale. I do not agree with the 40-foot height restriction being measured from the street level for the following reasons.
Many residents of Castleberry Hill made their housing purchases based upon the desire to have "unobstructed downtown views". Obviously, construction in the "old rail yard" would all but eliminate many residents' views. I stand on record as opposing any construction on the site that would:
+Remove views and site line of the residents of 310 Peters Street, West Lumber,330 Peters Street and/or any property adjacent to the rail property.

As written, the guidelines would permit developers of the rail site to erect buildings that would actually be taller than the buildings of historical interest on Peters Street.

This eventuality is driven by the knowledge that the rail site ground level is lower that the street or sidewalk height of the structures on Peters Street. Thus, if developers were permitted to build a building "not exceeding 40 feet" based on Peter street dimensioning, we would have rail site buildings that would actually be 50-60 feet high. And,Yet magically not exceed the roof height of buildings as viewed from Peters Street.

I also feel that the people who would be impacted the greatest by the height rule have not taken part in the process. Many of these people are in the process of building out their units and not actually living in the neighborhood.

I feel more discussion is needed prior to voting on these issues.

By jody Kuehn

Height Restrictions

I agree with you, Jody.

Having recently moved into West Lumber Lofts, I was unaware of the Steering Committe Findings. Most owners in this building have not even started to build out their units. I'm sure that very few of them are aware of the Findings.

I'm not opposed to developing this lot. Restrictions could be written to allow development and not obstruct the views of adjacent properties.

Being new to the neighborhood, I'm not sure if the future residents of this property were considered when these restrictions were written.

By Greg Rooks

Castleberry Heights

Jody, and Greg,

In the perfect world we would all like to see the skyline from our lofts, but alass, this is not the case.
Part of the interesting perspective that I am becoming aware of, is the fact that, more people are becoming involved in the goings on in their neighborhood.
Maybe it takes a little time for some to understand the pros and cons of the intended proposed Landmark Zoning Ordinance, so that we can make a more perfect paper to submit to the city. This draft of the ordinance is just that, a draft, but it is a almost complete draft.

What is missing is the comparative paper that is in place now, Z-93-38, that is supposed to protect this Historic Neighborhood. It does not give us the strength in law that would be required if a developer wanted to push the envelope.

Therefore, the steering committee drafted, with the support of the association, the document that is before you now. It is not perfect. It will not stop anyone from building on the vacant land behind the U-HAUL building. But it might help minimize what heights might be constructed and how to create them. YOU must be part of the team effort to help create the assemblage that may be developed.
This is the third time that I have written a response to this discussion. Unfortunately the other two were lost in posting? I must say that we will try to have a meeting to only discuss this paper at length and hope to answer all of your questions at that time.

By Jerry Hoy

Existing Zoning lacks teeth

It''s good to see those south of "the old rail yard" are finally participating. I want to point out that the existing zoning, as written, would actually allow much taller buildings than the steering committee findings. the portion of z-93-38 dealing with height states:
"No building shall exceed the maximum building height of others in the same block"

The tallest building on the block in question would be the U-haul building, which is an enourmous, tall building. Additionally, it has been reported that the legal basis of z-93-39 is being questioned at the city''s legal department. Developers in other parts of Castleberry have had no problem exceeding the existing zoning (Fair and Northside). This is not to say that the recommendations are good and final, but that they were written with the neighborhood interest foremost.
To further promote neighborhood friendly development, the Planning Team''s Urban Design Plan for Castleberry advocates a road and a parking lot north of West Lumber as a visual or site line buffer to those gazers south of the rail yards. Look for this plan on the neighborhood page the week of June 5th.

By David Butler