Castleberry Hill

Meeting Notes - Steering Committee April 2000 (3rd)

3rd Meeting

Meeting Minutes
Castleberry Hill Master Plan

Participants:
Kate Siegel
Jerry Hoy
David Butler
Herman J. Russell
Bill Bounds
Jim Schneider
Bruce Gallman


Prepared by:
Michael Hodge

Re: 3rd Meeting at Jerry Hoy’s loft

Castleberry Hill Design Guidelines Steering Committee

Meeting Date: 4-27

Agenda:
1. Review of Overlay Zoning District Map
2. Review of Transitional Height Planes
3. Boundary and Zoning regulations
4. Create Development Regulations:
a. height regulations
b. set-back regulations
c. use of the secretary of the interiors guidelines in sub-area 1

The following items were discussed:

Meeting began with a review of the last meeting, as follows:

1. The newly delineated boundaries of Sub-Areas 1,2, and 3. A forty foot height limitation within Sub-Area 1, with an exception that buildings north of Chapel would have a twenty foot limitation.
2. A 5 degree Transitional Height Plane (THP) from Walker would govern height in Sub-Area 2. The Zoning Chapter for the boundary of Castleberry Hill will be Landmark District with distinct sub-areas. Sub-Area 1-Landmark District; all others could be Historic.

Butler presented a revised map of the "Overlay Zoning District.” Subarea 1 was shown extending up to MLK.

Hoy explained the proposed 20’ limit on buildings along Techwood as the viaduct ascends above adjacent ground. If the building at Techwood is 20 feet it would be 40 feet at Mangum. He said a limit to the max of 20' would create a flat plane from MLK to Register District.

Schneider suggested that the American Seating Building be the Guide for height above Techwood and that a "fly-through" visualization study be done similar to the Ga. Tech study done for the olympics.

Gallman stated that 20 feet was too low for a two-story building-24 would work.

Siegel points out that the intent is to maintain a pedestrian scale similar to that of the Register District.

Gallman stated a law suit might follow the proposed down zoning north of Nelson.

Schneider stated cities may legally down zone.

Gallman said that might not prevent a property owner from legally protecting his interest.

Bounds stated that height should not be the overriding factor in the viaduct area. The character and appeal of the neighborhood is the central issue, not height in this area. The issue with height is we don’t need really tall buildings.

Russell suggested that height in the viaduct area, as well as others, could be more of an economic issue; and agreed with Bounds that keeping character of community be central. We don’t want 8 or 9 story buildings; but we put too much restriction in to say we have 40 feet when it takes 46 to make it work.

Gallman stated that when they were looking at purchasing the parking lots north of Nelson, the asking price was such that it would take a 50 foot building to make it work

Schneider responded that the asking price of property tends to push height up and developers often enter a contract with the intent of re-zoning to make projects feasibile. He said that the regulations should be written to regulate land owners and promote the sell of property at fare market cost.

Seigel asked "what gives the neighborhood character"?

Gallman said if you have ridiculous constraints that can’t be changed but the neighborhood wants something you take away flexibility. If I did a 3 story building on a parking deck on the field east of Peters that was a little over 40 feet the neighborhood would love it. The important thing is the look and feel at the sidewalk, skin texture, windows and encouraging retail. My opinion as a developer for the area north of Nelson would be 50 feet. And put in you can’t tear buildings down, like Denver.

Bounds suggest that the group define issues which make variances comfortable.

Schneider said criteria should be stated which stipulate the grounds for variances.

The group decided to draft and review some recommendations as follows:
- Subarea 1 would end at Nelson rather than extending up to MLK.
- The maximum height of buildings north of Nelson would be set at 50 feet
- The height of buildings in Subarea 1 would be 40 feet.
- Buildings east of Peters where the grade falls away, would have their height measured at Peters.


The group turned to Subarea 2 (along Northside).

The group reviewed the section drawings down Fair Street which showed the height of existing buildings and grade from Northside to the tracks.

Russell stated that the buildings along Peters and Walker should conform but a height of 70 feet was appropriate along Northside.

Schneider asked where the line would be drawn.

Bounds stated if it came up to the back of parcels along the west side of Walker it would be too close, and that McDaniel should have a neighborhood feel.

Russell said 40 feet would be ok along McDaniels.

Gallman stated a line could be drawn 150 feet or 250 feet or so back from Northside.

The group decided to have a map drafted with a 150, 200, and 250 foot height limiting line drawn east of Northside and review it at the next meeting. The buildings east of the line but west of the parcels that front Walker would have a 40 foot height limit.

The 70 foot zone would be limited to Nelson on the North and Hills on the South.

Butler asked how you treat a building the line cuts through.

Galman said part would be taller than the other.

Schneider stated there was much vacant land along the west side of Walker, and there could be a setback on private property to establish a wider sidewalk.

Bounds asked if utilities could be buried, Gallman said they did it at West Lumber for 8k, Russell said they would probably do it on the super block.

Schneider said he thought stucco was inappropriate on Northside.

Gallman stated there was some wonderful stucco throughout Stockholm.

Butler asked if there was a consensus for putting buildings at the street.

Bounds stated he didn’t think Northside would ever become pedestrian.

Schneider said the city is pushing fewer Buford Highways and more Virginia Highlands.

Butler said there is a planning study going that views Northside drive as a mixed-use corridor.

Russell said the state has bought land north of the World Congress Center, possibly to widen Northside.

Schnieder said if you do setbacks you should say what goes in the setback.

The group turned to Subarea 3 (along Whitehall).

Hoy proposed changing I-1 to c-5 in Subarea 3.

Butler said but not with the 40 foot setback.

Hoy said the intent would be to encourage more lofting.

Schneider said C-5 was the wrong designation.

Bounds said it should allow creativity and diversity.

Gallman said it should encourage something. Why not put in something that allows residential and retail? Say what we don’t want, such as adult entertainment, tow yards, package stores, and outside storage.

Butler said why can’t we have a wine shop. Are the thugs running our city?

Bounds said we are not going to change (the loitering and crime), economics are.

Gallman said the new stuff is not creating the problem, the old businesses are. I think you can restrict the sale of ½ pints.

Schneider said along Whitehall parking in back and caf?© fronts could be encouraged.

Gallman said you can have a setback and require them to use it.

Schneider said perhaps a private drive along the tracks could service establishments and reduce curb cuts.

Russell stated we should talk to the owner over there.

Bounds said Whitehall has strengths, it is in the Empowerment Zone.

Gallman stated we only had one buyer to us the EZ credit for first time homebuyer: 8k. The info is not available or out there.

Gallman said he would talk to Russ McCall and the group agreed to convene again on May 2.