301 replies to this topic

[Charlotte_native]

dubone, on Feb 22 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

That choice would resolve the conflict, but would start a new conflict with Dilworth even though there is already a 20+ story tower right there in the area.

As a former Dilworth resident I stil can't understand 1) why Dilworth folks would have much of a say in what is built here, or 2) why they would be opposed.  I remember the outcry when the proposed then built The Arlington and the cries of the building 'overshadowing' the neighborhood.  Good Grief!  How dramatic.  This part of South Boulevard is separated from any single family homes by at least 4 - 5 blocks with commercial properties and low-income and/or elderly housing.  It isn't like this is right on Dilworth's edge at all.  I hope, having nothing to do with how tall the building(s) ends up being or what effect it has on The Arlington residents, that the DCDA doesn't try and get involved with this.

[dubone]

It might work for them to pursue a single tall building if costs allow.  It occurs to me that Dilworth has cried wolf too many times at this point to be really effective.

In this case, they are 2 blocks from single family homes, but that might be mitigated by the fact that Y, the church, and the public housing which are part of South End's boundary as a buffer.  There is also a median buffer that makes it very difficult for cars on Carson to get to Dilworth. The single family homes that are close to this would already deal with the traffic and other urban issues, so perhaps those specific residents might not complain too much about a second tower in the area.  

DCDA itself would almost certainly complain, but who knows, they might complain about the current plan, too.  I think that if they opted for a taller tower to prevent a loss of property values (which eventually cuts to property tax value) would be seen favorably by the city council.  

I still think that it was a political compromise that lead to the height restriction here in the first place, but that really the city council has every reason to support that type of density next to a transit station and next to an existing tower.  Let's face it, this is adjacent to an existing 22 story building.  It is also adjacent to existing UMUD zoning that allows virtually unlimited height.  2inPink's view might already be able to be messed just one block further by existing zoning.  In fact, the whole area between Carson and uptown is zoned UMUD to allow for any height of building and urban development.  This rezoning would actually be a natural progression down.

[atlrvr]

It seems that 2inthePink's conversations with Matt at Harris indicated that it would be possible for Harris Dev. Group. to build higher than 120' WITHOUT goingh throug a rezoning.  I would be really interested in how this is allowable.  I haven't read the code word for word, but it seemed pretty iron-clad at 120'.  Again, not that this is a bad spot for height, but for public disclosure sake, I'd be nice if everyone understood that 120' is a "soft ceiling", if this truly is the case.

[dubone]

It might be possible because the zoning for this site is B2, not TOD-M as the plans originally called for.  Does B2 have height limits?

[Andyc545]

dubone, on Feb 23 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

It might be possible because the zoning for this site is B2, not TOD-M as the plans originally called for.  Does B2 have height limits?

Wouldn't B2 disallow the residential aspect of this tower?  I apologize in advance for not being completely fluent on the zoning codes and process.

[dubone]

Maybe isn't residential then.  I'm just saying that if they plan to do it without a rezoing, then it would need to fall within B2.

[atlrvr]

It has already been rezoned TOD-M...it was approved in January.

[dubone]

Okay, I see that now, sorry.

http://www.charmeck....ns/2007-154.htm

I wonder if they were seeing what they could within the existing zoning, but also staying under 120'.  It seems that that is a rigid height barrier, so I don't think they'd get away with going taller in this zoning.   However, they also don't need a rezoning, so Arlington owners and Dilworth residents don't actually have a say, really, beyond just starting a dialog.  But then again, squeezing 14-15 story buildings under a 120' height limit would be tough.

[2inthePink]

Harris indicated they are in the process of asking for a "variance" on the height restriction.
They want to go to 200"

If I am right, the developers got one for the south haus property. (Over the objection of the zoning committee, if I remember correctly.)

If they moved the tall parts of the project to the South Blvd side it would do a great deal less damage. Remember we are not just talking about views here, we are talking about value. This is the real issue. If the city grants them a variance ,they will be increasing the value of the Simpson property at the expense of some owners at the Arlington. This is where I believe legal precedent has been set in other cities.

If this wasn't in the Southend Plan for so long I don't think this would be an issue. We made buying decisions based on publicly published plans.
We also did not object to the rezoning to TOD-M because it fit with that plan and did have a height restriction.

If they move the height they want to the South blvd side they would greatly reduce the damage to others and still get the density they desire.
I am hoping for this.

[uptownliving]

I think it is going to take a full fledged rezoning if they want to increase the height by 80 ft on this project. Variances which I am interpreting as an Administrative Approval are for realtively minor issues...a matter of inches or a couple feet. A variance request to go 60% over the current zoning height limit is not going to happen with an Administrative Approval.

To get to 200ft they will have to do a full rezoning which means they will have to notify adjoining properties, hold a community meeting, and then go through the Planning Commision, Planning Staff, and Charlotte City Council approval.

[2inthePink]

I belive the process was as you have stated for South Haus. But it was in fact a variance they were asking for not rezoning.
I belive it went to city council with a recommendation from the zoning commission to deny.
City council approved it anyway. Kind of scary huh?

If I remember it was about 30% higher over zoning.
Anyone know exactly?

[Charlotte_native]

2inthePink, on Feb 25 2008, 11:56 AM, said:

I belive the process was as you have stated for South Haus. But it was in fact a variance they were asking for not rezoning.
I belive it went to city council with a recommendation from the zoning commission to deny.
City council approved it anyway. Kind of scary huh?

If I remember it was about 30% higher over zoning.
Anyone know exactly?

This does make one wonder what the point of zoning or planning recommendations are since they are often over-ridden, BUT in the case of South Blvd, they have been pretty consistent in their decisions for higher density and larger/taller buildings.  

To me it becomes alarming or inconsistent if you find this happening in random places, but this corridor and a handful of others have long been the place where this type of development is considered positive by various city/county folks and departments.

If larger and taller buildings aren't to be built on busy main arterials like this, where should they be other than solely inside the 277 loop?

[atlrvr]

Southhaus was a full-rezoning, with the contentious issue being that they specifically asked for height greater than "height determining" ratio would allow......it is still below the 120' cap for MUDD and TOD-M districts, but greater than the height allowed based on lateral distance form Single-Family Residential zoning.

The Simpson Lighting property would be a different case in that it is laterally far enough from single-family zoning that 200' should be allowed, if not for the artifical 120' cap.  I'm sure, this is their point in arguing to go to 200', but if I understand the code, I don't see how they would get the height they want without a full rezoning.  Of course the fine print often contains loop-holes, and if there is one, I'm sure they're aware of it.

Lastly, while I understand why pushing the towers towards South Blvd. would be preferable to The Arlington owners, from a urban design standpoint, having the tallest portion away from the sidewalks is best as it makes for better pedestrian scale massing.

[Charlotte_native]

An attempt at a positive note, 2inthePink, would the expanding skyline moving East or West with all the new projects create new views for you with a project like this?  Right now the skyline views are fairly compact in a single area, but Trademark moved it significantly, and Novare & The Vue & Wachovia will continue that pattern to the West, then NASCAR and projects in 2nd Ward will do the same for the East.  Add to that closer projects like Royal Court, there should be views in more than one direction down the road.

[2inthePink]

As far as where to build tall buildings outside the loop I think its obvious.
1. Anywhere it is currently zoned. There are many parcels near here.
2. Where it needs rezoning, do it where it does not impinge on others property values.
3. Where it does not go against publicly published plans.

Also abut the sidewalks, there is 100 times the foot traffic using the sidewalk at the Light Rail side than the street side.
I would think that needs some consideration as well.

[Windsurfer]

2inthePink, on Feb 25 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

Also abut the sidewalks, there is 100 times the foot traffic using the sidewalk at the Light Rail side than the street side.
I would think that needs some consideration as well.

This is actually a very good point. When my girlfriend and I go strolling down to Southend from downtown, we always enjoy this part of our walk. There really is a lot of other foot traffic we encounter along there too. Too bad it doesn't continue along the tracks into uptown.

[2inthePink]

dubone.. B2 has a really small height something like 30" I think. That's one reason why they rezoned to TOD-M recently with a cap of 120'. They would need something with downtown in it to get above 120" without a variance.

They say they will ask for the height restriction to be waived and go to 200'.

Charlotte Native   80% of what you have pointed out would be blocked out with the current rendering.
75% of our new view would be of 2 buildings about 100' away.  

I hope the new plan is better.

[monsoon]

2inthePink, on Feb 25 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

..2. Where it needs rezoning, do it where it does not impinge on others property values.
3. Where it does not go against publicly published plans......

Seems to me that if either of these had been followed in the case of the building you are living in, it would not have been built.   The Dilworth neighborhood fought against the Arlington saying in part that such a building was out of character and would hurt their property values.  And the building actually built looks nothing like the original plans that were put forth for the Arlington.  

Original rendering for the Arlington.  
  
In other words, the residents of The Arlington are not going to get much sympathy on either of these reasons.

[Charlotte_native]

2inthePink, on Feb 25 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

As far as where to build tall buildings outside the loop I think its obvious.

It seems that 'obvious' will be defined differently by different people.  To those of us without a personal interest in any of this, the whole corridor of South Blvd seems obvious.  i can certainly understand your issues and frustrations with what is being proposed, but from an unbaised perspective regarding this corridor this site seems prime for higher and denser development.

I hope, for you, that this doesn't grow and exceed a height that takes your views, but if it does I can see the reasoning considered when allowing larger taller buildings.

[Charlotte_native]

2inthePink, on Feb 25 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

2. Where it needs rezoning, do it where it does not impinge on others property values.

As a former appraiser of 12 years, I can tell you that this argument will be the one hardest to actually prove and hardest to get any traction with.  You can argue loss of value while the other side can argue the same considering 'highest and best use' for their property and its potential value.  It will be hard to prove that you will 'lose' value and you can't really argue for lost appreciation -- that is never guaranteed anyway.

That doesn't mean I don't think there will be an effect on your values, or at least in marketability, for a short period, but it will stablize.  One could also argue that being around more neighborhood retail, shopping, dining, and other amenties that come with more development would increase your value due to enhanced amenties around you.  It is also hard to say what will hurt your values since the building still isn't sold out from when it was completed a few years ago -- there are still developer held units that have never sold.

Though I'd hate to lose my views, The Arlington has always stood out to me as being a bit lonely in its location with not much other development and neighborhood services within walking distance.  Before Nikko most of the commercial component of the building itself wasn't even occupied.

I really am not 'against' you or your issues with what is being built beside you and completely understand, but only trying to point out the many other factors that those not living in your situation will evaluate and the overall perspective from unbiased and unaffected viewpoints.  If I were in your shoes I'd be upset too, but this is what is going on down this corridor and there will likely be more, including other parcels between you and downtown.

Edited by Charlotte_native, 25 February 2008 - 01:16 PM.