[Neighbors] Need your voice regarding building heights - please reply with input

Sat Jul 29 19:03:50 MDT 2017

This is very well stated, leslie Bowen,-- the importance of HOW a building is designed being as important or more important than the height. Although I also like the general idea of keeping a lower profile in our neighborhood, I think we should be aware of the advantages of increasing density in urban areas. It will bring more residents and visitors to help support struggling local businesses, and density is also better for the environment than sprawl. I'm just sayin'--- we could work for some good and enforceable design guidelines but not necessarily reject all ideas for change. The city planners and architects might actually have some good input. 

Joan Weissman
joan at joanweissman.com
505.265.0144
E-mail sent from cell: 505.379.4851

> On Jul 29, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Leslie Bowen via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
> 
> Pat and Nob Hill neighbors,
> I tend to agree with height limits of some sort because I love seeing the sky from Central and the surrounds.  What is equally important is how the new building will present itself to the street level.  Setbacks from the sidewalk, landscaping, interior courtyards for restaurants and shops – these are features that can really be molded to maintain a street level sense of Nob Hill.  A three story building like the building that Staples vacated or the new condo building on the corner of Carlisle and Central is worse than a five story building with an open front to the sidewalk, native plantings and a walkway front to back to allow pedestrian wandering and sitting – and maybe mandated public access to the rooftop to watch the clouds move across the mountains.
>  
> Thanks for taking this forward.
>  
> Leslie Bowen
>  
>  
> From: Neighbors_nobhill-nm [mailto:neighbors_nobhill-nm-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Davis, Pat via Neighbors_nobhill-nm
> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 1:19 PM
> To: neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Need your voice regarding building heights - please reply with input
>  
> Tandi, 
>  
> Thanks for your message and all of the others. You may have seen my response to others on the Nob Hill list serve, but I wanted to share it with you as well:
>  
> "I agree 100%. I've had our staff write up a couple of amendments, including one to eliminate the height bonuses proposed for Nob Hill.
>  
> We will have several committee hearings on the proposals before sending it to full council for more input. Keep sending your suggestions"
>  
> Pat
>  
> Pat Davis
> -City Councilor
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:21 PM -0600, "Tandi Hufnagel via Neighbors_nobhill-nm" <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi neighbors,
>  
> I'm sure you've all seen the updates from Gary and others about the proposed changes in building heights in Nob Hill.  
>  
> I wanted to summarize them because sometimes all the language in the codes can be hard to understand.  
>  
> Here are three major changes that could dramatically change the streetscape in Nob Hill:
>  
> 1.  The first change is to raise the existing building height limit from 39' to 45'.  That would include all blocks along Central in Nob Hill from Girard to Aliso.
>  
>  
> 2.  The second change is to add an additional 20' to the height limit in the areas near ART stations.  In Nob Hill that includes the stations at Bryn Mawr and Solano.  This would raise the height limit from the proposed 45' up to a 65' (a five story building).  The increased height zone would include a block in either direction (East-West) from the station.  So this would apply along Central from Aliso to Hermosa, and Richmond to Wellesley.  
>  
> *Pat Davis, maybe you can comment - has the additional height has already been nixed for the Bryn Mawr station?  In any case it is still being proposed for the Solano station zone.
>  
>  
> 3.  The third change is to allow the additional 20' height within 660' of the Washington station.  This would cover Morningside to Monroe.  So the majority of East Nob Hill could be built up to five stories.  Also, the proposal includes another 12' for any "Workforce" projects for a grand total of 77' allowable building height!  That's at least a six story building.  
>  
>  
> Here's what is needed:  Please reply to this email with your feedback on these proposals before this coming Wednesday.  
>  
> Also, please tell our councilman Pat Davis what you think!  His email is:  patdavis at cabq.gov.  I think he reads these neighborhood emails too.  
>  
> As our representative it's up to Pat to help make the final decisions for our neighborhood, and without your input he won't know what the neighborhood prefers. 
>  
> This is easy, you don't need to go to any meetings, just reply to this email and/or email Pat.  If you do feel strongly and wish to go to the meeting to add your voice, it will be August 16th in the evening.  Please contact Gary Eyster for more info at:  meyster1 at comcast.net.
>  
> Thanks!  
>  
> As I have written before, I think these building heights are completely out of character for Nob Hill.  They do not fit the historic architecture or human-scale texture of the neighborhood, and they are unnecessary.  The only people who benefit are developers.  Three stories is a good limit for any commercial development along Central.  I do support increased density to help small local businesses survive, however it has to be done with respect for the existing neighborhood.  Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
>  
> Tandi Hufnagel, Aliso NE
> ======================================================= 
> This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20170729/6f9ceca6/attachment.html>