Castleberry Hill

Meeting Notes - Steering Commitee May 2000 (2nd)

Final Meeting

Meeting Minutes
Castleberry Hill Master Plan

Participants:
Kate Seigle
Herman J. Russell
Alycen Whiddon
Jerry Hoy
Bruce Gallman
Mike Hodge
David Butler

Prepared by:
David Butler

Re:
Castleberry Hill Design Guidelines Steering Committee


Meeting Date: 5/11/00

Agenda: Review of revised Design Guidelines.

The following items were discussed:

Mr. Gallman addressed Subarea 3 (Whitehall area). From past dealings with the railroad (who has parcels at Spring and Peters) he surmised they would not be open to any restrictions on their property. He had spoken with Russ McCall (Wholesale Foods) and the owner of House Parts (Heath ?) who own much of the land along Whitehall. They do not feel like they should sacrifice property values for a buffer to the Register District. They were however open to restriction of some uses, such as:
1. Parking lots for hire for outside uses
2. Adult entertainment
3. Package Stores
4. Towing
5. Gas Stations
6. Heavy (polluting) industry
7. Body and Automobile repair lots and auto sales

Gallman stated:
- if you have a site like Simmons Plating, and you restrict the FAR, you make it very difficult for somebody to come in and develop it and clean it.
- McCall and Houseparts have pioneered the area along Whitehall, just as others had pioneered the Register District.
- The Whitehall Owners were probably OK with the recommendation to change from industrial to commercial zoning.

Based on the input from Whitehall the group decided to revise the Committee Recommendations as follows:
- Adopt the Whitehall Owners¡¦ recommendation on restriction of uses.
- Drop previously recommended height restriction but recommend height not increase from present zoning limits.
- Recommend rezoning of I-1 to a Commercial zoning in order to control pollution and encourage residential uses.

Ms. Whiddon described SPI zoning:
- Overlay: Layers of zoning can be confusing.
- Supplanting: Wipes away earlier zoning, simplifies.

- Administration of SPI zoning goes to a review committee (not council or zoning board). The Bureau of Planning reviews the project in the review committee. If there is a need for a variation the committee can review.
- One of the advantages is that it avoids a confrontational environment. Developers generally have a more flexible set of rules in an SPI district. SPI raises standards of Development in the Neighborhood.
- The Neighborhood gets a chance to review each project whether it needs a variance or not. They get to develop relationships with those developing.
- The review committee is established before the SPI is established. It includes businesses and neighborhood representatives.
- Neighborhoods working on or operation under an SPI were Candler Park, Midtown, and Centennial Park.

Russell stated he liked the process compared to what he has been through on his project.

Hoy stated that a problem with the SPI process is that it bypasses the neighborhood review process. An example is the Turner billboard, which went straight to City Council.

Whiddon stated that the Turner site was state land exempt from zoning, and technically what they did was rezone, which should have gone through the neighborhood, and that what happened was not a result of the SPI process. In the SPI process rezoning goes through the neighborhoods.

Russell stated he liked the process and we should build in safeguards and not consider the Turner event as an example.

Whiddon stated that, based on the review committee findings and presentation by the developer, the Bureau of Planning determines that the project meets the SPI zoning or not. Special Administrative Permit.

Whiddon stated that a variance is known as a variation. If it strictly doesn¡¦t meet the technical requirements, the department doesn¡¦t have to approve it. The committee looks to the goals and objectives in approving projects. Generally the department supports the neighborhood.

Hoy asked if the Variation went through the NPU.

Whiddon stated that if the Neighborhood decided it should, it would. You can set it up the way you want it. In the case of Lindberg, the representative can take it back to the Neighborhood.

Whiddon stated she spoke with Ms. Huebner of the UDC, who thought that it would work if the core were a Landmark District with an SPI overlay. The core subarea would be under the purview of the UDC (working with the Planning Department). The other subareas would fall under the SPI District.

Whiddon stated there could be two possibilities:
- Part of SPI 1-could be a part of larger effort
- Individual SPI-could be exclude others without interest in your area.

Whiddon stated it would probably require a CDP update.

Whiddon said it could be mixed use or SPI.

Gallman thought an individual SPI district sounded good.

Hoy had reservations about SPI.

Russell said SPI required representation and the right people.

Whiddon said it should provide more input.

Hoy state concern about a busy planning department taking duties from the Neighborhood. If it could be written with the availability of Neighborhood review then it would be fine. But things shouldn¡¦t be done in the dark.

It was decided to consider SPI zoning if the Neighborhood review process could be written into it.

The group turned to Subarea 2. The passage appeared fine with typographical modifications required.

Subarea 1 appeared fine with typographical considerations.

These are the meeting notes of this date. Project actions will be based on these notes. Please contact the writer immediately if your notes do not concur.

\projects\98008\minutes\5-11-00.doc

Copy: Participants