SouthEnd Midrise Projects

[atlrvr]

I just had one additional thought to be contrarian here.

If Harris is successful in getting this rezoned, the precedent is set that TOD-M can be "upzoned". This will likely have an affect of land values. Where-as land is currenly priced around $2.5M an acre, this could easily raise to the $4M range. The result is that the economics of many low and midrise projects may no longer work. Considering the amount of demand for high-rises is fairly limited in the grand scheme of things, this could significantly slow development of South End.

[Guest]

http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_news/story/709629.html

Another little rendering of the project that was in the Charlotte Observer. Apparently Dilworth is once again very warey of this projcet, and others. In the article from the observer it says the DCDA apparently voted against the Dilworth Inn Design, because it was too large. I had not heard of this, and don't really understand it, if Dilworth Inn has such overblown scale, how was latta arcade approved?

Edited July 13, 2008 by Guest

[Andyc545]

So I guess per the newest rendering and descriptions in the Observer, it looks to be 3 towers instead of 2. I thought the rezoning application had 2 on the site plan. I wonder if the three buildings that are depicted in the observer article are a backup plan if the two large towers in the rezoning application falls through.

[Raintree21]

So I guess per the newest rendering and descriptions in the Observer, it looks to be 3 towers instead of 2. I thought the rezoning application had 2 on the site plan. I wonder if the three buildings that are depicted in the observer article are a backup plan if the two large towers in the rezoning application falls through.

It's been 3 towers ever since the rezoning. The revised zoning was done back in April

[AuLukey]

Man, I really hope they don't stick to blue. While that color blue is much richer than any other in Charlotte, I feel it is just a representative flat color used for these renderings and that the actual color blue will be somewhere between Avenue and Wachovia. Blue would be nice on one of the towers, but not all three. I personally feel something a bit more outside the box, a la Arlington, would look much better in South End.

[RivermasterNC]

The condo owner in the article stated "I only bought here for the view, there's no other reason to buy here." wow.....I mean...come on! Are you REALLY going to buy a house or condo just because of the view that you have out your window is pretty? That's the ONLY reason he bought there? Talk about a waste of money.....if a terrorist attacked Charlotte and blew up all the buildings uptown.....would his view still be worth money?

Huh? You're kidding, right? In our area, many properties are purchased and developed for this very reason. The North Carolina General Assembly has had to pass laws to protect the views. Example: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/wq/lpn/statutes/n...eprotection.htm

[Charlotte_native]

Huh? You're kidding, right? In our area, many properties are purchased and developed for this very reason. The North Carolina General Assembly has had to pass laws to protect the views. Example: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/wq/lpn/statutes/n...eprotection.htm

If I'm not mistaken that law was passed so another project like Sugar Top on Sugar Mountain wouldn't be built. The ridge was cut down and a massive condo project was built right on top. This law is written to prevent developers from shearing off the top of mountains for development and protecting views from all around that look AT the mountains. Very different scenario that condos towers blocking each others views in a city.

Someone wrote on here earlier, if you want a protected view, buy with some common sense. See if your view looks over something like a park, school, church, or other structure that is VERY likely to remain the same. If your buildiing is surrounded by low density or under developed open land, it is likely that your view will change. Otherwise take a look around and make some educated guesses -- a friend recently bought at Avenue -- chose a westward facing unit because it looked over Settlers Cemetary, 5th & Poplar, and other properties that won't change.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Charlotte_native

[RivermasterNC]

If I'm not mistaken that law was passed so another project like Sugar Top on Sugar Mountain wouldn't be built. The ridge was cut down and a massive condo project was built right on top. This law is written to prevent developers from shearing off the top of mountains for development and protecting views from all around that look AT the mountains. Very different scenario that condos towers blocking each others views in a city. <snip>

I did not try to level what the views were. The stated comment was that purchasing for a view is a "waste of money", hence the Arlington resident was foolish. My point is, there are alot of foolish people "wasting money" if that is the case.

[monsoon]

Yes that law was passed specifically to keep another condo like that one on Sugar Mountain from being built. It was not designed to protect the views of people who live in such buildings. I don't think it would have any application in Charlotte. It it had, they people living in Dilworth would have used it to keep the Arlington itself from being built.

[ChiefJoJo]

I just had one additional thought to be contrarian here.

If Harris is successful in getting this rezoned, the precedent is set that TOD-M can be "upzoned". This will likely have an affect of land values. Where-as land is currenly priced around $2.5M an acre, this could easily raise to the $4M range. The result is that the economics of many low and midrise projects may no longer work. Considering the amount of demand for high-rises is fairly limited in the grand scheme of things, this could significantly slow development of South End.

Here is the staff recommendation:

Summary

This request proposes to rezone to TOD-MO to allow up to 600,000 square feet of transit oriented development, including retail, office, and residential. The request proposes an option to increase the maximum allowable height from 120 feet to 230 feet or 250 feet if view corridors uptown are preserved and/or additional open space is provided. The request also includes options to encroach into the 16-foot setback along South Boulevard with ancillary uses and excludes structures and devices from the maximum height calculation.

Consistency and Conclusion

This request is consistent with the South End Transit Station Area Plan, which recommends transit oriented development mixed use at this location. The optional provision in the TOD zoning district allows for consideration of higher structures on a case-by-case basis. The location of this property is just outside of the I-277 loop. The property is located diagonally across from a transit station, and as such is ideally located for higher density and increased height with a detailed site plan showing usable open space and well designed buildings. Therefore, with the submission of a more detailed site plan, and upon resolution of the outstanding site plan issues, this request could be considered appropriate for approval.

The rezoning is from TOD-M (mixed use) to TOD-MO (optional), which allows bldg heights of up to 250ft if certain conditions are met. The remaining properties will stay TOD-M and their height limit will be 120ft. Interestingly, I could not find a single mention of TOD-MO in the 2005 South End Station Area Plan. Is TOD-MO a new district? It's probably reasonable to have some built-in flexibility in the code to allow for more height--particularly areas like this so close to Uptown and not close to SF residential areas--but it could be a slippery slope if the city council does not proceed with caution in other areas.

Oh, yeah. That photo (^) of the couple who purchased in the Arlington is pretty funny. So their building is an exception, but no others should be allowed the same treatment? I have zero sympathy for them or their dog. The only way to guarantee a preserved view is through purchasing air rights. Plus, from the massing rendering posted, it looks like the new project will only obscure about 2/3 of the Pink's view.

[atlrvr]

TOD-M (O) is a variance from TOD-M which in this case allows an exception to the height cap of 120ft. under TOD-M.

I understand that each case will be visited on a one-off basis, but my post generally concluded that land holders will expect that their particular parcel would have to ability to have height-limits raised, and price them as such, which would be a deterrant to developers wanting to building mid-rises.

Similar concept to all the land downtown which is zoned UMUD which allows for unlimited height and density. We have lots of parking lots because the land owners are waiting until their parcel is chosen for a high-rise. Better to make $10M in 5 years than $3M today.

[rockhilljames]

I am very sad for the dog.

On the other hand, I'm imagining another 3 midrise towers in the midground of the photo and I'm thinking it will actually be a much BETTER view.

Whatever.

[MATB1980]

I am very sad for the dog.

On the other hand, I'm imagining another 3 midrise towers in the midground of the photo and I'm thinking it will actually be a much BETTER view.

Whatever.

I completely agree you on that. I would much rather be part of a new skyline than look at one in the distance and having a view of 3x new towers right outside my window would be pretty exciting for me. Just my opinion though...

[Andyc545]

I was thinking about this, and since the main argument and only concern to Arlington residents is loosing the view, put this into scenario... Since TOD zoning here has limiting to 120 feet say a developer decided to build an even more massive structure in land where they wouldn't even have to go through rezoning and completely eliminate the "paid" view for uptown. For example, land zoned UMUD on the edge of 277 here in S. End or say just the other side of 277, say a developer bought out several parcels, build a structure 800 feet in the air, and went 6 parcels across completely obscuring any view aside from its building itself. Then make that building puke green with highly reflective glass that reflects any sun from 3PM-8PM back into the Arlington... If they met all requirements for UMUD, who is to say that it can't be built. The point I'm trying to get across is that there is a lot more that can "block a view, obstruct a view, tamper with a view, or pose another annoyance to your home." Like others have said, you can't guarentee a view- this goes for any city. If you want a guarenteed view, move to Chicago on the waterfront or the Avenue overlooking a 300 year cemetary...

[RivermasterNC]

I was thinking about this, and since the main argument and only concern to Arlington residents is loosing the view, put this into scenario...

Andy:

This is not how I'm reading their concerns. I see two inter-related concerns here.

1. To the Arlington owners, possible devaluation of their property as a result of the view being negatively impacted by a development which they were lead to believe could not/would not happen; a basis for their choosing to invest at a premium there. I do not believe anyone is claiming they were given a guarantee, but the view was/is certainly a factor in the property value. This is further evidenced by the pricing disparity from the north facing units to the south facing units on the same floor with the same square footage as cited earlier in this thread. If it were your money, you would likely not be pleased either. I would guess the possibility of a large structure inside the inner belt, large enough to block the entire view of uptown could be a possibility, buy the risk of that happening is extremely low. They also were lead by a plan to believe the risk of a tower in the next lot was extremely low for the forseeable future.
   
2. To the community of Charlotte and potential new investors to the area, what steadfastness can you expect from your planning commission when a plan is written? Is the plan worth the paper it is written on? If you need to change the plan, change the plan.
   

Charlotte is holding her own in a period of real estate development weakness. A few random acts of inconsistency with established and published plans by the planning commission can have investors looking elsewhere to invest their monies. I believe Charlotte is already starting to see her development boom soften. How can the planners minimize their feeding of the decline?

ChiefJoJo - Yes, that building is an exception to the point that the plan was created after the fact in response to the building of the Arlington as an effort to prevent it from happening again. I understand the animosity toward the Arlington building and it's developer. I do not understand the animosity toward the Arlington residents or their pets. I'm not clear what the dog has to do with any of this. If it were a Jim Gross proposal, would it be getting the same support?? Probably not.

At the end of the day, it is hard to speculate if the Simpson Lighting property development will help or hurt the Arlington's net value. The inconsistency of the Char-Meck planning commission will have a negative impact on investors' decision making.

Respectfully,

Scott

Former 30-year resident of Metro Charlotte

Edited July 15, 2008 by RivermasterNC

[uptownliving]

Even if they were not seeking a rezoning the new building could block the views for about half the North facing units at the Arlington. So I assume those 50% already have the lack of a future view priced in. The current proposal would not block the views for about 75% of the Arlington north facing condos. So it is only really 25% of one side of the Arlington that could see a potential property devaluation from this rezoning. Looking at the entire Arlington condo tower this rezoning only negatively affects less than 10% of the units' views. When you look at it that way I can see why the Arlington HOA is not protesting this rezoning.

[2inthePink]

I feel most, including the reporter of the front page Observer article has got the issue pushed into just the view. This editorial from Sundays paper has more of what I feel is the real issue.

http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/story/710794.html

If you really want to be informed please see the city's SOUTH END TRANSIT AREA PLAN.

http://cmsmondo.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/cgi-b...ICTBASED+SOUTHS+#

On page vi of the introduction its states:

"The South End Transit Station Plan will be used as:

1. The governing land use policy document for the South End area;"

(Their bold not mine)

Page 57:

"HEIGHT LIMITATIONS:

Map 15 shows maximum allowable building heights for the area within the plan boundaries based on height regulations from TODD Zoning.

The tallest portions of buildings allowed in the South End PED area will be 120'. The maximum heights allowed will step down closer to single family residential zoning."

The comments about sugar mt are actually very on point. After the Arlington was built, the new south end plan was put together to stop it from happening again, just as what happened at Sugar Top.

Some points about the rendering. Harris has been quick to say they are not actual renderings. They are only to show general mass. They are showing the Arlington high and their buildings low. They also got a new definition of height I had never heard. Now the 250' height is to the top of the top floor. They can have any access and mechanical on top. Just for reference at the Arlington its about 30'. I always thought it was to the top point on the structure. Evidently not true anymore.

Everyone on here is entitled to their opinion. I know many hate this building and from what I've seen here its residents as well. The real issue here is can the common person trust the city? They laid out a plan (by the way, this plan is what I considered the "Church or Chicago Waterfront" under my view) and now they want to change it at the request of a major developer. Please remember not just 10% or 20% variance but close to Two and half times.

They have also steered this through the planning department with the help of a reecently hired ex employee of the department who probably wrote the South End Transit Station Area Plan.

Just put the view issue aside and look at what's underneath. Then just don't condone this plan because you don't like the Arlington. Look at what going on behind this. Think of what effects it could have on the you or the city as whole in the future, if all city plans were treated like this?

One last note: The whole project will be on one large parking deck shared by all 3 buildings. The buildings would be separate entities and Mr Harris has stated its "highly unlikely" that all 3 would go up at the same time. This would leave a stub for who knows how long. Does Charlotte need another concrete stub??

Edited July 15, 2008 by 2inthePink

[ChiefJoJo]

I agree with the notion that a plan and zoning was put in place that restricted the surrounding land use and building height, and that they reasonably expected to continue to hold that view. That makes sense, but let's put this in perspective. As uptownliving put it, the number of units being affected is small, and the notion that--despite it being approved under governing plans of the day--the Arlington somehow should be the 'last one in' on raising the established height limits of the area is disingenuous and self-serving. Yeah, they probably have a good argument on the upzoning, but I'm not going to shed any tears if they lose. The dog comment was just a joke.

I'm still curious about the TOD-MO zoning. Atlrvr said it's a variance on the TOD-M. I'm not a zoning expert so... why is there a classification and formally established height limit on a variance? I think this could establish a dangerous precident in the corridor (and others) that you can just throw established plans out the window if presented with the latest tall tower. Where do you draw the line and what does this do the viability of other planned or potential projects down the corridor if this project soaks up that much more of the (shrinking) marketplace? I think the editorial has some real merits.

[atlrvr]

There is no established height limit on the variance. The 250' is the self-imposed height limit that Harris is requesting as one of the provisions in this rezoning. They could have asked for 150', 200', 246'8", 872', etc....

The only limiting factor is what City Council will approve (well, and the stability of the soils )

[2inthePink]

FYI

70% of all unit owners at the Arlington signed the protest petition.

(Anyone who ever belonged to an HOA should be amazed by that %.)

The HOA board did support it and continues to support the protest completely.

[atlrvr]

^ Will the HOA then be presenting a valid protest petition to city council? That doesn't seem to have happened yet.

[2inthePink]

It is my understanding that the city attorney will not allow that.

It seems the city attorney is not very coopearitve in this regard.

Edited July 15, 2008 by 2inthePink

[uptownliving]

It is my understanding that the city attorney will not allow that.

It seems the city attorney is not very coopearitve in this regard.

Straight from the Protest Petition:

For condominium and common area property, a protest petition must be signed by a duly authorized officer or agent of the condominium or owners association.

Seems that if you can get your HOA President to sign then that would do it.

[rockhilljames]

You do understand that the South End Transit Station Plan is not a legally binding document, just a recommendation to the city? Any variance can be approved or disallowed based on it's merits. The benefit from adding density to the transit corridor is not outweighed by your view being partially obscured. I still maintain that your view will be worth just as much as it was before, you'll still see Charlotte's skyline with a piece of it closer than it was before.

In terms of what is really going on here city wide is actually nothing new. Developers have always been able to apply for variances. Some succeed when they shouldn't, and some get turned down, and some get approved when the variance makes sense.

In this case, it makes sense.

By the way, no one here dislikes the residents of the Arlington. I think it's developer has a bad reputation, but that has nothing to do with the residents.

I do feel, however, that you're being a little silly. You live in your condo, so I don't think you bought it purely as an investment. If you did, I would just say that if I had that kind of money, I'd invest it in something a little more solid than a view, planning document or not.

[monsoon]

....The real issue here is can the common person trust the city? They laid out a plan (by the way, this plan is what I considered the "Church or Chicago Waterfront" under my view) and now they want to change it at the request of a major developer. Please remember not just 10% or 20% variance but close to Two and half times. ....

Guess what? This happens all the time in Charlotte now. How many times have there been stories in the Observer about someone buying a suburban home only to find the zoning was later changed to allow their pretty farm or forest view to be mowed down to be replaced by exactly the same kind of place they are living in. It's exactly the same situation with the Arlington so I would not expect any different treatment. Development plans in this city are not worth much more than the paper they are written on and are subject at anytime to be ignored by any developer that chooses to petition the city council which all to often passes these things.

In my recent memory I've only known of one case where a development on these lines was turned down and that is because it happened in a place inhabited by several council members.