[Neighbors] New building height allowances along Central in "upper" Nob Hill

Sun Mar 12 18:19:01 MDT 2017

By allowing the height increase the property along Central becomes far more
valuable. A developers dream if they own the property or have options to
buy purchased earlier.
Dave McCoy

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:03 AM, X via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <
neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

> I agree with height restriction.  We must try to preserve the  integrity
> of our historical neighborhood.
> thanks all.
> Max
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2017, at 6:37 PM, kingkb via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <
> neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I, too, wish to support the height restrictions described by Tandi. The
> question I have is this - while we are all agreeing with each other, how
> does that voice get beyond our group email to influence those who guide
> this process?
>
> I don't want to have to write a letter, I'd be more than happy to sign a
> petition ..... or would it be reasonable to think that Pat Davis is
> monitoring these talks and taking down some helpful data?
>
> Hoping to hear back, and hoping that all these great voices and ideas lead
> us to wonderful living in Nob Hill!
>
> Karen at Hermosa/Marquette
>
> On Mar 10 2017 11:55 AM, SARA via Neighbors_nobhill-nm wrote:
>
> We also agree with the height restrictions described by Tandi.  3 stories
> is enough!
> Sara & Ron Friederich
> Grand & Amherst
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Wendy Barker via Neighbors_nobhill-nm" <
> neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
> *To: *"Flora Silva" <silva_f65 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc: *"neighbors nobhill-nm" <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>,
> "Tandi Hufnagel" <tandiwe76 at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Friday, March 10, 2017 7:56:01 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Neighbors] New building height allowances along Central
> in        "upper"        Nob Hill
>
> Thank you Tandi,
> Yes. I agree. 65 feet is way too high like Flora said.
>
> Have a great day,
> Wendy
>
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Flora Silva via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <
> neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well said, Tandi. This was discussed at the NH Board Meeting. Sixty-five
> feet is way too high!
>
> Flora
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Tandi Hufnagel via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <
> neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
> *To:* neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com; patdavis at cabq.gov
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2017 1:24 PM
> *Subject:* [Neighbors] New building height allowances along Central in
> "upper" Nob Hill
>
> HI Pat and neighbors,
>
> I've been attending some of the recent zoning meetings that are planning
> new codes for the Central corridor, specifically relating to the new ART
> line and the stations.  My concern is building heights being proposed
> nearby the stations, specifically the Solano station.
>
> The new height allowances would be 45 feet as a standard zoning height
> along Central, plus a 20 foot bonus for being near a station, equaling a
> total of 65 feet.  This would apply to the old Aztec motel lot for
> example.  That height is incredibly out of place for the surrounding
> neighborhood and the current commercial structures.  65 feet would allow
> for a FIVE story building - the idea of a five story building looming over
> Central as well as being an eyesore for many blocks in all directions is
> completely not in sync with historic preservation, community desires, or
> even basic aesthetics.  The three story condo at Central and Silver is
> already pushing the limit of what many neighborhood residents feel is an
> acceptable building height.
>
> I've been to the business meetings and listened to the developers, and the
> neighborhood meetings and listened to residents.  As both a resident and
> Nob Hill business manager I understand both sides.  I agree that more
> density will benefit the neighborhood, adding vitality, more foot traffic,
> and increased business support.  However, this needs to be done within
> reasonable growth limits, and 65 feet is way, way above what is appropriate.
>
> The current restrictions of 39 feet from Carlisle to Aliso, and 54 feet
> from Aliso to Washington, are the maximum that should be allowed, including
> near stations.  This would allow for consistent building development
> without creating glaringly irregular massings of "old" vs "new"
> developments that would not flatter this historic neighborhood.  These
> existing building heights restrictions are plenty high enough for a retail
> ground floor or wrap around a parking structure, and residential units
> above.
>
> Pat, since it sounds like you have a key hand in writing the new zoning
> for our district, I urge you to reconsider the 20 foot "bonus" proposed
> near the stations, and near the Solano station in particular.
>
> Thanks,
> Tandi Hufnagel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing listNeighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.comhttp://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20170312/43b838b7/attachment.html>