June 5,2000

As a property owner and 7 year resident, I am concerned about a few points in the proposal. As far as the height restrictions, we have had restrictions in place since 1993 to protect Castleberry Hill as a National Register District. Most people have purchased, renovated and developed their property based on the current regulations. These owner occupied spaces provide a certain quality of life that drew them to this area to begin with.

The majority of the buildings in the Castleberry Hill Historic District are one or two story buildings. I can only think of nine buildings that exceed two stories. I do not believe that we need to be in such a rush for a restaurant and retail that it sacrifices others property value and quality of life.

In my block, 32 foot height street frontage is the current regulation. This is designed to protect our historic district at the buildings facade. In recent months, variances have been passed by the neighborhood association for a 36 and a 38 foot building. Now there is a proposal to change the current 1993 regulation to allow 40 and 50 foot buildings. These variance applications were not made known to all property owners, but were approved by a handful of attendees at the neighborhood meeting. Not all attendees were property owners.

I have been to almost every Neighborhood Association meeting for the past seven years and I do not feel that the process of these variances is all-inclusive. I believe that issues such as height variances should be made aware to all property owners and voted on by all property owners. All property owners should be notified by mail of upcoming important issues. For those unable to attend, they should be allowed to vote by mail.

Unfortunately, I was not able to sign up for the Steering Committee of this new proposal. I appreciate their time and hard work, but I do not think that their findings are the consensus of the majority of the property owners. By not "penalizing" the developer of the railroad gulch, would in turn impact and "penalize" a large number of property owners on Peters Street. The impact would be felt on the Mueller and Deere residents and future developments of Fulton Supply and JR Erickson. This proposal is geared to the interest of the developer and not necessarily for the best interest of the neighborhood. Our neighborhood and residents will be here long after the developers have moved on to other areas.


By Calvin Lockwood

Steering commitee issues

Calvin,
I believe that the current regulations would not protect the residents of the Mueller or Deere buildings. The currents rules are based on the highest building on the block. My understanding is that "on the block" means the buildings on the same side of the street. For example, on your street, it is your building just for the west side of Peters not the east side of Peters. With that logic, there is no protection for the Mueller or Deere residents since there is no building on that block and the buildings across the street aren't the reference point.

I would also agree that the current process of variances passed at the neighborhood meetings is not very representational. Hopefully, developing better guidelines that are agreed upon by the neighborhood would make that process less dependent on the attendance at any given neighborhood meeting.

I don't agree with your implied belief that only property owners have a vote. I don't believe that any process of our government (local, state, or federal) limits participation to just property owners. The neighborhood association cannot and does not limit participation to just property owners. If it did, it would be illegal.

I was a member of the steering committee although I missed 3 meeting unfortunately due to business travel. The meetings that I attended had lively discussions which ultimately resulted in compromises especially between property owner issues and developer issues. It is important to remember that the two developers on the committee are two of the largest property owners in the neighborhood and have the same property owner rights and responsibilities as you and I have. I would like to think that neither side got all they wanted but that we each got something that we could live with.

As I remember the neighborhood meeting when the steering committee was formed, this document was to be a "straw man" to help focus discussion on a proposal. At that meeting, the zoning regulations were discussed, but we bounced from one issue to next without resolving any issue or even staying focused on any issue. In that context, I proposed that a committee be formed to put a document together that would better focus our discussion. At least in my mind, that is what we have created -- positions that the neighborhood can react to and hopefully reach a concensus after an open discussion with as many resident participating as possible.

The steering committee document is just the starting point. Now is the hard part: getting broad neighborhood involvement in a discussion and reaching decisions collectively. I frankly am disappointed in how little discussion there has been. All of us need to work hard to increase neighborhood involvement.

Bill Bounds



By Bill Bounds

Height Restrictions

I live at the Mueller and I do not want a building across the street from us to be taller than ours. Our building is at one of the entrances to the neighborhood and it would be a shame to allow a building to be constructed in either of those empty lots that would take away from the beauty and history of the neighborhood.

That is one reason a committee was formed to look at the neighborhood in a whole. And in this thinking shouldn't the Mueller and Deere Buildings be just as protected as the building the committee members live in. After all this is the entrance to the neighborhood.



By Tami Donnelly

Regulations with a Purpose

If we could step back and look at the current regulations and why they were created, the main purpose would be to protect the character and integrity of the core of the historic district and surrounding areas. As the regulation from 1993 states "No building shall exceed the maximum height of others in the same block". When thought out, with historic preservation in mind, if the is no building in a particular block the next point of reference would be the building across the street. If there is no building across the street, the next point of reference would be the nearest building. This would insure that the older buildings are not dwarfed by new development and become less important. I would hope that we could define the current regulations to make them clearer to the intention of historic preservation. This would protect the older buildings on Nelson Street from being "in the shadows" of new development.

As far as the two developers on the Steering Committee being the largest property owners in the neighborhood, I agree that they have the same property owner rights and responsibilities as everyone else. That means that any property purchased since 1993 would have the current zoning and regulations applied to their parcel. If property is purchased for development or renovation, it should be based on the financial feasibility of the limits in place. I do not believe it would be wise to purchase property on the chance that variances may or may not be obtained or to try to change a neighborhoods vision for personal gain.

Concerning voting and rights to vote on Neighborhood issues, I believe that should be up for discussion. Neighborhood Residence issues Vs Property Owner issues. As I have suggested, Property Owners should be notified by mail of upcoming issues to be voted on and not rely solely on the Internet for advanced notice. I do not know of any one who has received a copy of the Proposal by mail. This is an important issue to the many hundreds of Property Owners in Castleberry Hill, but only around one hundred are on the e-mail list. This is not an inclusive process. Let?’s make a change for the better!




By Calvin Lockwood