Castleberry Hill

Meeting Notes - Steering Commitee April 2000 (2nd)

2nd Meeting

Meeting Minutes
Castleberry Hill Master Plan

Participants:? 
Kate Siegel
Jerry Hoy
David Butler

Prepared by:? 
Michael Hodge

Re:? 
2nd Meeting
Castleberry Hill Design Guidelines Steering Committee? 

Meeting Date:? 
4/24/00

Agenda:
1. Review of Overlay Zoning District Map? 
2. Review of Transitional Height Planes
3. Definition of boundary and the nature of future 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:

Butler presented a map of the "Proposed Overlay Zoning District", based on comments from the previous Steering Committee meeting. The map diagramed the following: Subarea 1, Subarea 2, and Subarea 3 (click here to see map).

WEB BROWSER NOTE- image of the map requires a browser that supports the PDF file format and the download time is approximately 1-min.

Sub-Area 1 would follow the core of the existing register district but depart from it as follows:? 
1. Take on parcels west of Walker one or two or three deep.
2. Expand north up to Martin Luther King Drive.

Sub-Area 2 would be the area west of Walker; and Sub-Area 3 would be east of the buildings along Peters Street.

Butler also presented two section drawings, which investigated the use of Transitional Height Planes. The first section was cut along Fair Street through the Register District to show the height of existing buildings and the lay of the land. Several transitional height planes coming off 200 Walker Street (46 feet tall) were investigated to see which one might work. The drawings indicated that even a low angle height plane would allow buildings of almost 65 feet at the top of Castleberry Hill (Subarea 2 west of Walker between Fair and Stonewall) while protecting the Register District.

Hoy stated the five-degree Transitional Height Plane would do well.

The discussion continued with the group reviewing transitional height as it applied to the special conditions east of the Historic District near the railroad (the field). The planning team had measured the Swift Building by counting bricks and determined that it was about forty-two feet tall (from Peters). The group also reviewed an additional section created to investigate the special height conditions North of Nelson Street near the Techwood entrance to Castleberry Hill near the viaducts.? 

Butler stated that the drawings demonstrate that transitional height planes can protect the scale of the register district and allow flexibility in the height of other buildings.? 

Siegel questioned why the boundary for Subarea 1 had been extended to Martin Luther King (MLK) drive.? 

Butler responded regarding the value of including Friendship Baptist Church under the protective zoning and that it coincides with the neighborhood boundary. He also identified MLK as a highly traveled artery and an important presence for the neighborhood.? 

The group also recognized someone would consume the empty land on the other side of MLK for large entertainment type structures.

Hoy suggested that forty feet be the magic number for Subarea 1.

Butler pointed out that some buildings are three stories in the front and five rear. One way to define height is average height above grade.

Siegel stated that the critical location for determining height was the frontage street, or the street on which the building fronts and is primarily viewed.

Hoy suggested that the height classifications for all sub-areas be simple. He suggested that the areas just West of the railroad ("the field") , now proposed as Sub-Area 3, be included in Sub-Area 1.? 

Butler agreed that the simplicity of the borders was important, but pointed out that residential development on a parking deck, proposed by Bruce Gallman in that area would not be feasible under the restrictions imposed by Sub-Area 1, if height were measured from grade in the field, which falls away from Peters. This was one example of projects which would benefit the community greatly but may not come to pass if the rules are too strict.? 

Seigel proposed a forty foot rule followed by exceptions for areas where grade falls or rises.

The group studied Sub-Area 1 as it related to the forty foot rule and existing topography.? 

It was determined that a height plane drawn east from Peters Street would allow sufficient buildings in the field. In other words, if the base point for measuring buildings in the field was Peters Street then the buildings in the field would not be penalized for being on lower grade.

The grade at the vacant land in front of the Bottleworks was studied. Because the Techwood Viaduct is as much as 20 feet above the grade at Bottleworks, a forty foot building measured from the viaduct would overshadow the Bottleworks.? 

Siegel proposed a rule where buildings along the viaduct north of Chapel would be 20 feet tall.

The group agreed this rule would protect buildings in "the holes."

The group also acknowledged that the rules should work for each site without being too complex, and that a previously stated goal was to avoid rules which would anticipate variances. For these reasons, it would be wise to rely largely on goals and statements of intent.
The group continued by discussing what the zoning chapter would be. The boundary of the Neighborhood could be a Landmark district with distinct Subareas; or

Subarea 1 could be a Landmark District and the other Subareas Historic District.

The group agreed to convene on Thursday with revised map and draft regulations.