Castleberry Hill

Meeting Notes - Steering Commitee April 2000 (1st)

Kick-off Meeting

Meeting Minutes
Castleberry Hill Master Plan

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

Prepared by:
Michael Hodge

Re:
Kick-Off Meeting
Castleberry Hill Design Guidelines Steering Committee


Meeting Date: 4/11/00

Agenda:
1. Discuss Purpose and Goals of Committee and the present meeting.
2. Answer the following questions:
a. What should the identifying features and general characteristics of Castleberry Hill be?
b. Where and What are the existing shortcomings in present zoning?
c. What should the nature of future zoning regulations and boundaries be? (What is the intent?)
3. Discuss/Draft Statement of Intent
4. Discuss Boundary
5. Discuss Development Regulations

The following items were discussed:
Butler: Can we start-out generally discussing the goals of the committee? One of our goals is to have the Urban Design Commission initiate zoning changes for the neighborhood based on our recommendations? How about we go around the table and state, generally, each of our concerns.

Siegel: The consensus of the neighborhood association is to use the tools in place…zoning, to preserve the neighborhood, but the present zoning is not effective.

Butler: True, present zoning is not clearly written or easily interpreted for some situations.

Schneider: Currently what's in place is another problem. Having conditions which are separate from the zoning ordinance is a bad precedence, and a bad way to do zoning (cites examples).

Siegel: Purpose- 1) Preserve Historic Quality of Castleberry Hill. 2) Make it easier to understand the regulations and ordinance.

Butler: In looking at this for several months we have discovered some serious zoning flaws such as the fact that the buildings on Nelson Street are in SPI-1, not C5-C, which means there is no protection whatsoever.

Siegel: Is the existing zoning inappropriate?

Schneider: There is a mix. C5-C was instituted in '85.

Gallman: C5-C was fine until now. It is not working with new construction. It controlled the process for some time. Mainly we should throw away the C5-C and look to Landmark.

Siegel: Like Grant Park?

Schneider: Yes, but they have a Historic District. We should use Landmark with sub-areas.

Siegel: Landmark and Historic District, or Landmark with sub-areas? Karen Huebner says we could have two areas, or sub areas similar to Grant Park.

Schneider: Let me go back a minute to purpose. We have to put criteria in place that will avoid the issue of variances and make zoning clear enough.

Hoy: That would be an easy process. We have enough information received from the neighborhood as to what we would like to see. There are a number of things that are not clear in the ordinance and there is a conflict in how it is seen in UDC. It should be a clear simple, easily readable process (cites examples-roof heights, etc.).

Gallman: The current ordinance restricts certain areas of Castleberry. The criteria need to be reasonable. Most areas in the Historic District are C5-C. Almost anything could be done in the areas of the Historic District that are SPI-1 (cites examples on a map of Castleberry, and specifies areas north of Nelson Street adjacent to Techwood). These areas are not covered by the Historic District (cites a swatch of vacant land that has no regulation). This land is essentially the Gateway to Castleberry. Whatever happens there will impact the neighborhood greatly. There is the potential to create a barrier in which Castleberry would be lost to that segment of downtown. I see Marietta and Techwood as the 5th Avenue of Atlanta, if you will, with high-end retail shops, etc.

I would like to see protection at the Gateways (referring to map). Northside is over there. It has some impact, but is not really a part of the district. It's distinct. Techwood, Walker and Peters are important-they should have pedestrian sidewalks. The Norfolk Southern building, as a Gateway, will have an impact at Peters. A set of criteria for what should be done on facades and height regulations should be put in place. Columbus (Columbus, Ga.) has a well written set of criteria's. I don't want to see another Uhaul, but because of fires in the 70's you can't say to people, who have a block with short buildings, now you're restricted because height restrictions are based on the buildings that still stand. Jim you would know better than me. What is the highest height? Six seems too high.

Schneider: Three stories…this building is three. The Deere building is three in the front and five in the rear.

Siegel: Three…from everything I've ever seen as historic documentation. What I'm trying to do is get us to divide the areas and define what we want to do. People generally relate to buildings at the street. The magic number could be applied to "at the Street".

Gallman: (in response, and refers to map) How does this apply to back street areas near the tracks?

Schneider: This goes back to my earlier suggestion regarding criteria which governed floor to floor heights.

Butler: How do we relate this to Whitehall? Do we want one height regulation to blanket the entire area, or should we create sub-areas with regulations that address, and apply to, specific conditions?

Hoy: Set it up that way, separately. We can set a separate set of criteria which targets the Whitehall area.

Schneider: The limit on that end should be Whitehall to McDaniel.

Siegel: That would apply to the surrounding areas, the Century is four stories.

Russell: I'd like to add my two cents. I have a very serious problem with height. Northside drive from Fair to Stonewall and east to Norwood, I own it. I have real problems with measuring from the street there. We need some commercial stuff in this area (cites examples-coffee shop, restaurants, etc.), we need the commercial traffic. The height from sidewalk would prohibit what the community needs. Is there any way to carve out Northside to McDaniel, east to Peters? That is the only area commercially that makes sense.

Schneider: (directed to Herman J. Russell) We are suggesting 3-stories. Would buildings on Northside need more?

Russell: My new project being presented before the UDC board needs more.

Schneider: You won't need it there it's already applied for.

Russell: Even beyond that project. The scope of the super block plan, which most of you have seen, will require more.

Hoy: The only one it would hurt is the current project. A variance would have to come into play just for that project.

Schneider: Another point. The drugstore would not fit pedestrian circulation pattern in that area. The relation of the building to the sidewalk does not allow it.

Russell: You're saying you can't walk up? There is a need for a retaining wall.

Schneider: Not according to present grade.

Butler: Let's back out of the details for this specific project, and get back to the height.

Hoy: I like the idea of having an exact foot height, because everything is left to interpretation at present.

Schneider: We have the right to set an absolute limit.

Siegel: (directed to Bruce Gallman) How high is Calvin's building?

Gallman: I measured Calvin's because the height of his building is the height limit for my project.

Butler: We need not burden ourselves with a specific number.

Russell: You're gonna limit yourself with a fixed number. The number of stories is better.

Gallman: (cites example of current project in the historic core) On the 10 acre site which slopes away east from Peters…if I build structures on a parking deck which maintain the grade of Peters I am penalized for the height of the deck. What about a height above sea-level?

Schneider: Too much topo.

Butler: The guy on the hill gets a four-foot building.

Schneider: Where do we define the magic line?

Russell: I own vacant land next to Norwood. I would think it should tie in, and have no problem adhering to the Historic District, but behind Norwood I will fight.

Gallman: (referring to map) I agree, I drew this line, beyond the initial frontage on Walker there is a lot of existing inventory which needs to be protected. But beyond is non-conforming, at most it is a main connection point to Dome. Let's say someone came along with a 20 story tower. So what? I don't see why we are concerned.

Siegel: It's the gateway factor.

Schneider: It walls us in.

Gallman: I don't see it.

Hoy: Northside should be included…

Russell: It's different.

Hoy: …but, included.

Siegel: I was initially thinking more of Peters and Walker. Do we want to reference from Peters and Walker?

Butler: Perhaps we can choose a number that when the height at four corners of the building are averaged projects similar to Mr. Russell's' will fit.

Russell: I think we hurt ourselves with specific heights.

Siegel: Could we do both, i.e. a max not to exceed 40'?

Hoy: Yes, there are a lot of ways to do this. We can keep the "C-Condition" and apply a different set of criteria for Northside. Which is different, but included.

Siegel: It sounds like we need some criteria or menu that guides Northside, with elements that are characteristic of Historic District, maybe with exceptions of massing and scale.

Butler: I think the mass and scale should tie-in, but facade elements will be hard to control.

Gallman: Anything on Northside will be oriented to Northside. Any developers interested in traffic count will stay outside of the Historic designated area.

Butler: The city is trying to recast streets like Northside, as seams that support neighborhoods rather than automobile oriented strips. In fact there is an on-going study that views Northside as a boulevard.

Schneider: Yes, development on Northside could include parking in the rear.

Russell: (question to Bruce Gallman) How much of the land in the area do you control?

Gallman: (points out how much on map for H.J. Russell)

Russell: I suggest we address controls to the neighborhood. I control 65-70% (identifies on map); we can work together with the neighborhood to shape the use and controls. We should have a different set of rules and at the end of the day we should come away with a positive. I'm with Bruce.

Butler: Maybe we can draw a reasonable line, then we can examine the area(s).

All parties refer to map as Bruce Gallman diagrams. Group comments identify that north of Nelson Street there should be a set of rules protecting the Register District. The line of protection continued down to the west side of Walker to a depth of one or more parcels, depending on the nature of the parcel.

Schneider: …Nelson Street is different. You can have a transition height plan.

Gallman: …before we were in competition with residential developers and projects could be 12 stories. (referring to map) This area is a great site for residential, due to its location relative to downtown. We tried to buy this piece, but the price got too high.

Siegel: North of Nelson is another area? What do we call it?

Schneider: We can define it complimentary to the core and designate as a sub-area.

Siegel: What I'm trying to do is get us to divide the areas and define what we want to do. (referring to zoning map)...is the line east of Peters, sub area 1? Or do we want to include everything to the track?

Butler: If we can agree on a site plan that shows a park and parking we can submit it.

Schneider: Do them both simultaneously.

Hoy: Once we have something substantial we can get it moved along quickly. The northern edge has to be zoned now. We are not trying to put things in place that would tie Bruce or Herman's hands. Do we have anything that needs to be discussed regarding Spring and Whitehall?

Butler: There have been rumors of lofting…

Schneider: I-1 allows lofting.

Hoy: Whitehall should stay I-1.

Butler: …or become neighborhood commercial.

Schneider: The kinds of use existing there are not appropriate to Neighborhood Commercial, such as metal workers and glass blowers…(cites Central Glass)

Butler: Isn't there an economic trend for industry leaving the city?

Gallman: Yes, but McCall (Wholesale Foods) has a good set-up.

Butler: The buildings along Whitehall could be better connected to the street.

Siegel: Would it be appropriate for North end?

Schneider: Yes.

Siegel: We should write codes to control, and keep officially zoned industrial.

Hoy: Perhaps Whitehall is a phase 2?

Meeting is drawing to a close.

Russell: What exactly are we trying to accomplish today? Was there anything said that we can move on?

Hoy: The review of the SPI-1 district creates a separate section in Landmark Zoning. It will create a blend in the neighborhood.

Siegel: Do we have boundaries? Can we draw it up to clarify?

Schneider: David could go back and do drawings to better detail everything.

Butler: That's my job. How about a follow-up meeting to review the work?

Schneider: If the topo's could be included, to get a transitional height plan, it will better reflect the impact.

Butler: We will have another meeting to review and make final decisions as to what to take to Neighborhood. Hopefully we will have some guidelines after our next meeting which the Neighborhood can vote on.

Meeting adjourns. The steering committee will meet again on Monday April 24th at 3pm.



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\4-11-00.doc

Copy: Participants
Commissioner Dobbins
Karen Huebner, Urban Design Commission
Committee Members