|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
| Sector Plan | |
I am not compelled often to write an email letter. In fact, this is my first as a board member. Given a worthy topic, however, I'll take my moment. Here it is: DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: All Nob Hill neighborhood residents and Nob Hill Neighborhood Association (NHNA) board members FROM: Kevin Wilson, current board member of the NHNA RE: reply to Nob Hill draft letter The upcoming Albuquerque City Council meeting to approve the Nob Hill Highland Sector Development Plan (NHSD) is this neighborhood’s current chance to decide its future look, livability, and usability. After reading the proposed NHNA draft letter to City Councilor Martin Heinrich and the response to this letter by NHNA Board Member Josh Allison on February 13, 2007, (both items should be on the NHNA web site at www.nobhill-nm.com), I felt that I needed to respond with my own thoughts on this matter. I served on two of the NHSD committees. These were the Pedestrian and Safety committee and the Residential Commercial Transition committee, in which I served as spokesperson. Mr. Allison is 100% correct in his call for public knowledge of any changes to the NHSD. However, by striking at the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association letter for its board asking for corrective measures, I feel he is striking at the wrong target. The correct target should be the NHSD itself for having many changes that were made without the public’s participation. Because others may see things in the same light as Josh, a bit of history should be addressed for this discussion. For context I’ll start by saying that I am against a large amount of the NHSD in its current form and strongly believe that the general population of the Nob Hill neighborhood has been severely misled and misrepresented. This occurs primarily in the Residential and Commercial Transition section of the NHSD. I am embarrassed and somewhat ashamed that my name is even associated with this current plan. I have been fighting to correct these problems, first with Site Southwest (the planning company hired by the city to create the plan), then with the Albuquerque Zoning Board during public hearings, and now again with the upcoming Albuquerque City Council meetings. In the beginning, over a year ago, the plan was to update the older existing Nob Hill Sector plan. Around the same time, some parts of Nob Hill and Highland received the designation of being “blighted” which brought with it federal benefits. This resulted in the decision to combine Nob Hill and all of Highland into the same plan. All-volunteer working committees were formed and several public meetings were held under the guidance of Site Southwest. The first of these meetings were well attended by many residents, developers, and business owners. Some “hot” topics included the Lead/Coal one way streets, a trolley on Central, historic preservation of Nob Hill homes and store fronts, sidewalks, lighting and streetscape, and the “granddaddy” of debate – allowed building heights and design on and off Central. At that time a couple of proposed building projects came up in Nob Hill along Central and Silver that ranged in height from 3 to 6 stories. A large majority of Nob Hill home owners opposed any such plans of this scale. The Residential and Commercial Transition committee was comprised of a pretty equal ratio of residents and contractors so a huge amount of time was spent designing a plan that both groups could be happy with. Developers wanted more height and residents wanted buildings pleasant to live next to. As a committee member I helped sell these compromises to the public. We told them to give us their ideas and tell us their concerns and we would come up with a plan including such. That is not what happened. After taking the public’s input and then getting their approval of the committee’s recommendations, I believe the majority of attending residents had a strong feeling that they were heard, understood, and represented, and saw no further reason to attend continued meetings that Site Southwest held. Not only did the residents think that they were being listened to, many members of the committee also believed the same when the final recommendations were submitted for final draft. Toward the end, there was growing pressure on Site Southwest to finish up the plan and get it over to zoning rather quickly, presumably because several building projects were being held up awaiting approval of the plan, and because Site Southwest had reached their time limit and/or budget given for this project. The finished project submitted by Site Southwest to the zoning board, and soon to be presented to the city council for approval, took the Residential and Commercial Committee’s report and turned the majority of it into “recommendations” and only kept the maximum building heights by East and West zones as zoning code, along with just a few other minor considerations. This current plan ignores the separation of a North and South division of Central, a maximum distance of single family homes to building height ratio, requirements to “wrap” an entire multi-story building with outward facing store fronts on 2 or more sides, hidden parking underground or canceled in the middle of a building, courtyard style parking, and a far greater “wedding cake” effect than the now required 15 foot insets, and many more guidelines intended to be included as building code law. In essence, almost all of the compromises the residents thought they were getting in exchange for allowing buildings 3 to 6 stories tall, did not become required code in the current plan! When the plan went to the zoning department for public hearing, it was scheduled for a day that was made known to the Nob Hill residents. This day was cancelled and moved to another day, with a time range hearings between 2 and 8pm, in the middle of the week. Then the location was changed to make attending even more difficult for the average homeowner. My closest guess is that at that meeting developers were represented in favor of the plan at about 9-to-1 to residents in support whereas the few residents that did make it to this meeting spoke out overwhelmingly against some portions of the plan. I can not think of one single change made to the plan that came from the objection of a Nob Hill resident. I believe the Zoning Board went under the completely misguided assumption that the outcome of the Site Southwest public meetings were taken into account in the final draft. To make matters worse, at the final zoning board hearing, in the final 10 min. of the hearing, the Board Members voted for the inclusion of a clause allowing multi-story buildings East of Carlisle to ADD one additional story to the building as a “penthouse” level. This idea was never approved by the Nob Hill residents. Even more ironic is that Albuquerque Board Member, Mr. Seagull, asked for a reduction in height allowed on any buildings on the corner of Girard and Carlisle and on Washington and Carlisle to preserve the current neighborhood aesthetics. His request was voted down in a 3 to 2 vote, with the reason being that “to make such changes to the NHSP draft would require further public review and acceptance”. How in the world does adding the additional “penthouse” story not also require a public review? So, in returning to Mr. Allison’s worry about the wishes of the Nob Hill neighborhood residents, the truth as I see it, is that the current version of the Nob Hill Highland Sector Plan has very little to do with what our residents think they are getting. I hope I have shown reasons to support this belief. I think it’s up to the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association and its Board to make sure this is corrected before it is passed by the City Council. If we wait for the first mega structure to be built under the current proposed plan, I foresee the public outcry will be overwhelmingly against it and then they will turn to the Nob Hill Board, followed by the City Council, to stop it from happening again. Then we will have a couple of large buildings in our neighborhood that look as out of place as the two buildings on San Mateo and Central. In absolute fairness I must say that I am very interested in this subject because my home is close enough to Central to be greatly effected by this plan. To understand the impact of a building not built to fit in with the existing surroundings, look at one of the following examples: 1) The QWEST building on copper, 1 block west of Washington. 2) One of the large buildings 3 blocks south of the Alvarado Post Office. 4) The mammoth retirement home 1 block south and west of Lomas and San Mateo. Imagine being a home owner living one, two, or three blocks away from any of these. Looking at this completely from a business standpoint I have to question the actual market need for unlimited 5 to 7 story buildings running down Central from Carlisle to San Mateo. Many of the newest condo-retail units from Old Town running east to Nob Hill are not sold out or 100% occupied by businesses. If these units are continued to be built purely on speculation, it’s only a matter of time before saturation occurs, which will lead to buildings just sitting vacant which in turn will lead to a halt on future development. If development is planed and controlled, the Nob Hill area can be filled in, with the ability to reach an 85% plus filled occupancy rate, thereby creating a vibrant and desirable community. However, it should be designed to reach this point quickly, before major development moves to the new project planned south of the airport or the ranch land and land grant areas west of Rio Rancho, and while our economy is in a growth cycle. Thank you for your time and consideration. My hope is that a large show of support for changing the plan, from its current form, can be achieved before being passed by the city council.
COMMENTS FROM JOSH ALLISON, 2/15/07 Kevin and other board members, neighbors and friends - First, I want to thank you, Kevin, for making your thoughts available to us all. I have read - and re-read - your letter, and I found it very informative. I learned a lot. So thank you very much.
Secondly, although you frame your letter as a response to the board's draft letter to Councilor Heinrich and also to my response to that draft, I'm not sure that you and I necessarily disagree. I can see how my previous statements could be read to mean that I was against trying to amend the plan at this point. (By way of example, please see my letter where I wrote "I'm sure you [the board] discussed the possible ramifications of trying to add requirements to the Sector Plan at this point. Did the group think it was feasible and/or beneficial? Is the Sector Plan able to be modified at any point in the future, after it has been passed by the Council? Are such amendments feasible and/or likely?") However, I didn't mean to suggest that I was against amending the Sector Plan at this point. In fact, my questions about amending the Sector Plan were truly questions, as I don't know how or whether the Plan could be amended right now, or if, for reasons unbeknownst to me, that would be a non-issue.
With the exception of my statements quoted above, which I think can be easily misconstrued, I don't think you and I disagree on some of the major points of your letter, if I understand them correctly. So please allow me to try and clarify what I originally wrote and how it could impact the work of the NHNA so that we might see where we agree.
To be clear, my comments about the Sector Plan are not about its substance. That is to say they are not intended to be read as comments about whether or not what the plan says is right or wrong. I acknowledge that I did not participate in the community input meetings leading up to the draft plan that is now available, and while I have my opinions, I don't feel qualified to say whether the draft document reflects the opinions of those who attended those meetings, or of the neighborhood in general (assuming those opinions differ). So please don't assume that my comments are about the substance of the plan or about an agenda that I have. I don't have an agenda, and I'm not trying to make sure that the plan says one thing or another. My motive is to try and get a plan passed through Council that is something the entire neighborhood wants - a plan that we all can support in order to minimize the amount of nay-saying in the future. I think a plan that isn't supported will ultimately be a failure in one way or another.
My comments about the plan - and the NHNA's proposed revisions to the plan - were about process, specifically about the NHNA's proposed process for reviewing future developments. It's that process with which I disagree. Here is my understanding of what has transpired thus far:
1) The draft Sector Plan either says some substantive things that people don't want it to say, or it doesn't say some things that people want it to say. In either case, the draft plan is inconsistent with some, or all, of the public input.
2) In response to draft plan's lack of consistency with public input, the NHNA has proposed to require a " site assessment review which includes mandatory public input which may be done through the NHNA on all developments that face Central Avenue and/or the adjacent residential areas."
I think such a site assessment review process is the wrong solution because it is a procedural remedy to a substantive problem. Such a review process feels a lot like our board is saying something like this: "well, the plan doesn't say what we want it to say; so we'll require a review process down the line (prior to or as part of the city's approval process of any proposed development) at which point we'll be able to tell people what the plan really should have said." I think such a solution is rife with potential problems. For starters, I'm unclear if the NHNA's position of a proposed development would be binding on anyone - specifically the city or the developer. If the NHNA's decision is to be binding - and I can't imagine the city or other stakeholders in the plan would go for that - there simply have to be objective criteria spelled out, or the city is opening itself up to lots of risk about how the NHNA would be making such determinations. On the other hand, if the NHNA's site review process is simply advisory, then it doesn't contribute anything to the plan, except to put the NHNA in a position of being a development gatekeeper without any authority.
Perhaps more importantly, though, I think that advocating for such a process simply puts off the debate about what types of developments are consistent with the community's vision for Nob Hill. That seems unfair to just about everybody: neighbors aren't being heard; developers are going to feel that they've been sand-bagged, and the NHNA is going to be in the middle, which brings me to my last point. I don't see how advocating for such a process is in the best interest of the NHNA. We've talked some about thinking about future board members, and I'm just not certain that committing future board members to leading a mandatory review process of proposed developments without quantifiable standards is responsible. In fact, it seems to me to be putting the NHNA in the very position some of us have been struggling to get it out of - the group that says no to everything. (Now this is not to say that I don't think the NHNA should have input into future developments. I think we should. However, I think that if we're doing our job as board members, we can give input on proposed developments in much more proactive, community-oriented ways than trying to get people to adhere to Sector Plan requirements that don't exist.)
So in this regard, Kevin, I think we agree. I think we both believe that the Sector Plan should be amended now to state what the neighborhood wants it to say. (By way of reference, I'm thinking of your comments that "the truth as [you] see it, is that the current version of the Nob Hill Highland Sector Plan has very little to do with what our residents think they are getting. * * * [You] think it’s up to the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association and its Board to make sure this is corrected before it is passed by the City Council.") If the Sector Plan doesn't say what we want it to say, then I think it's our job as NHNA board members to lead a process to get it to say what it should - either now or in the future - not to simply say we'll review projects on a case-by-case basis down the line.
Again, to those of you who made it this far, thanks for reading. Looking forward to talking with you all next Thursday.
Josh
PS - I've not yet heard from anyone but Kevin (in his letter below) about whether or not my reading of the proposal is correct. If I'm off base, please let me know.
COMMENTS FROM GREG WEIRS, 2/18/07
To the board-
I was interested to read the proposed letter to Martin Heinrich regarding the board's concerns on the sector plan, but what really caught my attention were the responses to the letter from Josh Allison and Kevin Wilson. If the situation is as Kevin has described it, namely that the Nob Hill residents' input is not represented in the plan but they believe it is, then this must be addressed as soon as possible. As I understand it, sector plans are difficult to put together, but once in place, are long-lived and difficult to modify or circumvent. I also agree with Josh's contention that if the letter is to carry the full weight of the neighborhood, then the board must ensure the letter truly represents most of the residents. To this end, I can propose the following steps. Determine the degree to which the sector plan is misaligned, in direction and extent, with residents' past input and current perceptions. That the board is drafting a letter shows that significant work has been done in this direction, so this is principally a communication issue to make residents aware of the situation. As a start, the web pages and email list can be used, and kudos to the board for establishing them. Another possibility is to put message boards through the neighborhood. As a model consider the sign one resident has put on the corner of Solano and Grand, or thereabouts. A volunteer for each sign could be responsible for its upkeep. I am willing to be the volunteer for a message board near my house. The sub-committees (traffic, residential character, etc.) could be reconvened to determine specific points where the sector plan falls short of or diverges from their expectations. This will partly reduce the burden on the board (in terms of workload) but more importantly, make more residents aware of the situation. If there are significant concerns with the current sector plan, then Mr. Heinrich must be made aware of them, as the letter will do. If he is not responsive, or if other parts of the city govenment are barriers, consider an editorial in the local papers, again with the purpose of publicizing the issue to neigborhood residents. I deeply appreciate the board's efforts in making our neighborhood a better place to live. Greg COMMENTS FROM CHRIS SMITH, 2/20/07
Not sure if we are still in this process, but I wanted to comment on the discussion regarding the Sector Plan and our proposed letter to Martin Heinrich.
I think it can brief.....and I would pose it more as questions, than opinions. I hope I understand the facts --- there are 2800 homes in Nob Hill (5000 residents or so?) and our attendance at the last annual meeting was approximately 150-200 people? Participation on the different committees during the Sector Plan drafting period was significantly less than that? Not sure of the exact numbers of participation (I think that Residential Character Committee I participated on was no more than 12 at one time --- Gary Eyster could confirm that) and there were 4-5 committees?
Where am I going with this? I am not convinced that this letter is completely representative of the entire neighborhood at this time. Just by a review of the numbers there are at least 4000 plus people who fall into one of the following categories --- 1) don't care about the Sector Plan, 2) oppose the Sector Plan, 3) support the Sector Plan, 4) don't know about the Sector Plan............other categories? Whatever category they fall into --- they are the majority at this point?
So how do we address the silent / non-participating majority? How do we truly know their position. Does the Board in fact take the stance of we know what is best for our silent / non-participating neighbors? Which could be the fifth category - people who think that is the NHNA Boards responsibility? I think that we all agree that has been and could be dangerous?
I guess that is what I am struggling with --- the belief / the conviction that change is required in the Sector Plan versus the lack of voice from the majority. How do we know that the silent / non-participating majority are not completely okay with the Sector Plan in it's current form?
Thanks for the time and I would respectfully say I think these questions or at least the last one is an important one. Chris Smith
COMMENTS FROM KAREN KING, 2/21/07
Many thanks to the board for establishing the information exchange via the web - as one who can seldom make the meetings (let alone any city meetings) it's very helpful to have a way of hearing the details about our sector plan. I have some thoughts to throw in that may well expose my lack of understanding of "how things are done" -- but I am concerned about the degree to which neighbor input gets gradually edged out of the sector plan finals. First -- I can see why Sites Southwest would get on a "hurry up" if their time and money for the project was running out -- but I don't see why that should force us to lock in the plan as it is now. At this point, without the new plan, wouldn't a new project simply go through the old process -- and doesn't that involve some review? (in other words, I don't buy that we have to get the plan finalized because it's holding up construction projects). Next -- it's very difficult for residents to participate in a process that has meetings, often during the workday, that influence the plan -- and most don't have time to read the full plan (by contrast, this falls within the workday and work for those who want to build in our area). I'm extremely grateful to Kevin for highlighting that what we neighbors think is happening is incorrect -- and for providing details. Thanks, also, to Josh for wanting the plan to truly represent what neighbors want. I appreciate that the info is on the web, but hope the board will send the current dialogue out to the email list, since most may not be looking in on a regular basis. (I checked the site today specifically to see if there is a way to sign up for email there -- the offer sent to me to be added onto the list has bounced back twice -- hope it's easy to fix). Can we not have Martin come to a(nother), well advertised meeting? This time to listen and problem solve, instead of giving us a nice speech? It seems to me that our meetings (annual included) should be an opportunity to have access to our councilor, not just have him deliver at talk about things already determined. I'm delighted to hear that I'm not the only one interested in having a message board (and ideas on ways to do this without perpetual tape and sheet protectors are welcome). I think the idea to get something in the paper is great -- I imagine it may be easy to get a note on the evening news as well. Thanks, Greg, for your proposed steps. We have many neighbors who will be interested when information gets to them. With much appreciation, Karen
COMMENTS FROM SIGNE RICH, 2/22/07
Comments on Draft NHNA letter on the Nob Hill Highland Sector Development Plan
I agree with the issues that the neighborhood association has identified—the need to align implementing regulations with the vision, goals and policy statements, and the need for site plan review for projects adjacent to Central Avenue and/or facing neighborhoods. However I think that review should follow the normal City review process with comments by all stakeholder organizations such as the NHNA and the NHBA and by other interested Nob Hill residents. Site plans should be required to include elevations showing the relationship of the development to existing buildings.
Regarding the need to strengthen implemention, other regulatory tools should be developed in addition to site plan review. To achieve variety in height as recommended by the Commercial and Transitional Character Committee (CTC), a parcel by parcel analysis is needed to set appropriate heights based on such variables as slope, historic context, view preservation, and proximity to residences. In the Historic Core, heights should range between one and three stories based on results of the survey.
Another issue is the desired “in and out” character of the streetwall. Courtyards and plazas are typical of Nob Hill as shown in R66 motor courts and such iconic buildings as Jones Motor Company and the Nob Hill Shopping Center. Courtyards and other outdoor gathering places should be encouraged, not prohibited by the Plan. I agree with setting FAR density standards and think they should be part of all CCR and OR zones.
The impact of heights and densities on historic neighborhoods bordering the Central corridor is of greatest concern to neighborhood residents. While active uses and well designed facades should be required for Central Avenue and for each street that directly faces neighborhoods, other means of strengthening transitions should also be included in the Plan. Transitional zoning or overlay zones can set standards for relationships between commercial and residential development, which is the key challenge. Relationships can be defined in terms of minimum distance between high density and single-family homes, two-story height restrictions, and treatment of parking. These parameters will have a huge impact on neighborhood acceptance of higher densities.
The Plan permits tall buildings to overshadow small homes on the north of commercial developments. The Plan should include north boundary solar access requirements (currently proposed only for other residential lots) to all properties that have a north boundary facing a lower density residential lot (R-1, SFHD, or MFHD). Heights proposed in the Metropolitan Redevelopment Plan for Upper Nob Hill Highland should be retained for the area south of Central between Carlisle and Washington.
Other issues of overflow parking and cut-through traffic affect neighborhood quality of life and should be included. On-street parking on residential streets should not be used for meeting new commercial parking requirements. Parking requirements should not be reduced for commercial developments on the same block as single-family homes.
A fuller array of zoning tools should be used to achieve the desired vision and character expressed in working committee reports and in the goals and policies sections of the Plan. Transition zones or overlay zones should be created to achieve a fine-grained scale consistent with the character of Nob Hill. Regulatory incentives and trade-offs would also help to install community amenities and variety in return for height or density bonuses.
Retention of small businesses should be added to the list of major issues, with restrictions on size added to the Plan along with other means of keeping the 25 ft. rhythm of storefronts. Preservation of the character of the Historic Core should be addressed through surveys of characteristic facades and use of historic or urban conservation overlay zones.
Finally the Plan should place greater emphasis on housing diversity, offering examples of townhouse, patio homes, lofts, carriage houses above garages to name a few. These types of housing could provide appropriate transitions between higher densities and single family homes and could help to meet market demand and strengthen the retail sector.
Redevelopment should fit in, not totally change the character of Nob Hill. The Plan needs stronger regulatory tools to mediate between development interests and those of the community. The neighborhood association should not hesitate to demand quality redevelopment that is respectful of those qualities that have made Nob Hill successful.
A more complete list of specific amendments is needed for Council consideration and action.
Sincerely,
Signe Rich, AICP property owner 3601 Campus Blvd. NE
| |
|
|
|
|