Where's the "TEETH"?

Several years ago, a committee was formed, meetings were held, documents were printed and distributed at the Neighborhood Meetings. This committee was formed to give the Urban Design Commission guidelines for what the Neighborhood would approve and disapprove. The copy of the document I have states "Building Heights-No taller than what was existing on block in 1985". This was to insure that the U-Haul Building was not a factor in determining height for that particular block of Peters Street. The U-Haul Building is not a contributing structure to the Historic District and was built before there was any organization formed to stop such inappropriate development.

To my surprise, this document was never passed on to the Urban Design Commission. It would have drawn clearer lines when added to the current regulations which have been in place since 1993. Other guidelines in the document include building materials, set backs, roof lines, roof top decks, lighting, etc. I do not know why this was not submitted to the UDC, especially when the "pre-1985" issue comes up frequently when building height is discussed at Neighborhood Meetings. I believe this document would have been an excellent starting point for the Steering Committee.

As far as a perfect world, no one is guaranteed a skyline view from their loft. But zoning conditions were put in place in 1993 in insure that the majority of buildings in Castleberry Hill could enjoy the views from their roofs. This height restriction also protects the historic integrity of the National Register District in that the older buildings are not dwarfed by new development and become less important.

I believe that saving the character of the Historic District should be first and foremost.


By Calvin Lockwood

Height Restrictions

I applaud the efforts of the Steering Committee. Unlike the Neighborhood Association meetings the Committee was actually able to accomplish something. However, as can be expected, the Committee's recommendations are considered controversial by some and not considered at all by others. I just have few general comments regarding the recommendations.

First, I agree with several residents who feel that the vacant / parking lots across from the Mueller and Deere buildings should be included in Subarea 1 since those lots are a major entrance point for the neighborhood. The current proposal would allow for a 50 foot glass building to be constructed there. In my opinion, that would really damage the historic character of the neighborhood.

Second, I think building heights should be limited to the height of the tallest building on the block, but in no case should it exceed 40 feet. In my opinion, the governing benchmark should be the buildings on the block. If the block is vacant lot, then the height of the buildings should not exceed the height of the tallest buidling within a block radius (i.e., north, south, east and west.)

Third, the vacant lot behind the Swift building should be subject to the same height restrictions (i.e. 40 feet). I don't think we need to measure building height from Peters St. If the height is restricted to 40 feet, then that might help preserve views for existing residents.

Fourth, it appears that the Architectural Standards only apply to Subarea 1. I think this needs to be explored in much more depth. Again, I don't think I want a 70 foot tall glass building in our neighborhood. I also would like to ensure that pitched roof housing is not built at least in Subarea 1 and that new buildings and additions are stucco happy.

Finally, what are the height restrictions currently in place for Subarea 3?

By Rob Hutchins