Charlotte City Council – The Naked City Blog

Open Streets, funding culture and arts, densifying single-family zoning, etc.

This photo shows the event known as Manhattanhenge, when the setting sun aligns with the east-west street grid in New York City. I took it July 12, 2018, at Rockefeller Plaza in midtown Manhattan. It has nothing to do with this blogpost. I just like the picture. And I like the idea of Manhattanhenge, named after England’s Stonehenge. And I like a good street grid.

I haven’t posted for weeks, due to a variety of life events including travel, the flu and a death in the family.

So to give Naked City Blog readers something to read that is not Trump news, here’s some of my writing from recent months published in The Charlotte Observer and Charlotte Five, which some non-Charlotte readers may not have seen:

How should Charlotte pay for the arts?

Does Charlotte really need an environment committee?

This festival is just the start of opening up Charlotte’s streets

The racist roots of single-family zoning

Tree ordinance proposal raises alarms around N.C.

Photo: Nancy Pierce

Charlotte likes to boast of its tree canopy, so a proposal at the state level to gut N.C. cities’ tree ordinances has gotten Charlotte City Council’s attention. At the council’ Environment Committee meeting on Wednesday, after a briefing about the measure, the committee referred the issue to another committee to devise a lobbying strategy with N.C. legislators. Here’s the PlanCharlotte.org article I wrote yesterday after the meeting.

But if you’d like to burrow a bit deeper into the issue, here are links to news coverage from around the state:

It’s not entirely clear how the proposal emerged late in April from a state study panel, the Agriculture and Forestry Services Study Commission, its members appointed by the legislature and the governor.

But at one March meeting, the commission heard from an Iredell County nurseryman upset over municipal regulations in some cities over who pays for trees that get planted and aren’t acceptable to local government officials. And some state legislators, as well as developer lobbying groups, have said for years that some cities over-reach in their ordinances affecting private property.

Here’s a link to the agenda materials for the study commission’s March 28 meeting, with a copy of a
presentation from John Allen of Shiloh Nursery in Iredell County. Allen’s presentation shows a variety of news clips about an incident in 2011 in which the city of Charlotte fined Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church after a church member severely pruned crape myrtle trees (horticulturists call this kind of pruning “crape murder”) on church property but which apparently had been planted because of a requirement in the city’s ordinances. After a national outcry city officials dropped the fine, and said they were working with the church to educate members about pruning techniques that would not harm the trees.

Meanwhile, in Greensboro, civic discontent continues over what many believe to be extreme tree-trimming practices by Duke Energy. Last week a confrontation between a local couple and tree-trimmers led to police and an assistant city manager being called to the scene, and Mayor Nancy Vaughan getting involved. Here’s the report in Triad City Beat. Residents there have been so angry for so many years that last year the Greensboro City Council created a new tree ordinance aimed at preventing some of the more severe tree trimming.

Over the years utility tree-trimming has also infuriated residents in Charlotte neighborhoods. Some years back, when I was at the Charlotte Observer, I got a surprise phone call from then-Planning Director Martin Cramton, as angry as I had ever heard him, complaining of a contractor for Duke Energy who showed up in his back yard intending to, from what Cramton described, essentially clear-cut a part of the yard. Cramton, phoned by his wife, had rushed home and got the tree-cutting delayed for a time. But — maybe because Duke is headquartered in Charlotte, and then-Mayor Pat McCrory was an employee, or maybe because of how often fallen limbs disrupt power here — the Charlotte City Council never seriously discussed an anti-tree-trimming ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed possible ways to get more power lines buried. Those talks went nowhere, either.

Charlotte council to vote on three preservation projects

The Cohen-Fumero house, designed by Charlotte architect Murray Whisnant

The Charlotte City Council at tonight’s meeting is expected to vote on designating three buildings as historic landmarks. The first is the Cohen-Fumero House. Read more about it at the PlanCharlotte article, “Can Charlotte learn to love Modernist homes?”

For Charlotte, it’s an unusual selection:

First, it’s in East Charlotte, not a part of the city that’s been graced with many landmark buildings.

Second, it’s a mid-century Modernist home, an architectural style that while attractive to a younger, hipper population around the country, doesn’t get the love from the more traditionalist sectors in Charlotte, a city with a comparatively large bloc of traditionalist sectors.

But in its favor is this: Landmarking historic properties is easier in parts of the city that are not seeing intense development pressure. That’s why so many historic properties in uptown were wiped away; the dirt under them was too valuable for new development.

Some personal disclosure here: I’m friends with the original owners, artists Herbert Cohen and Jose Fumero, who in the 1950s and 1960s hosted much of the Charlotte “Creative Class” in their living room for Sunday dinners. They’ve been together for something like 50 years, which in itself is worthy of note. And I’m friends with the architect who designed the house for them, Murray Whisnant. Whisnant, a Charlotte native who also designed the Rowe Arts Building at UNC Charlotte, has been a creative force in the city for decades.

The other two properties are mills: The Defiance Sock Mill in the Third Ward neighborhood, and the Louise Mill, built in 1897 in the Belmont neighborhood. Charlotte is (finally!) seeing an impressive collection of renovated and adaptively reused mills dating to its textile-industry past. Among the notable projects:
Atherton Mill in South End, Highland Mill in NoDa, the Charlotte Cotton Mill uptown, and Alpha Mill in uptown/Optimist Park. (I’m not sure where one neighborhood ends and the other begins.)

To see the reports on the historic properties on tonight’s City Council agenda:
Click here for the Cohen Fumero House.
Click here for the Defiance Sock Mills.
Click here for the Louise Cotton Mill.

Find answers behind candidate rhetoric

Campaign season is here. As always with local elections, voters must first try to sort out he candidates who know which end is up regarding local government, and only then dive into figuring out who they agree with on the issues.

This is not always easy. Read on for some helpful questions for Charlotteans.

(If you’re wondering, in North Carolina municipal elections are in odd-numbered years. In Charlotte, the mayor and City Council members serve two-year terms and are elected in partisan elections. So you can hardly turn around between elections. This year we have a Sept. 10 primary, with the possibility of an Oct. 8 runoff election, and then a Nov. 5 election.)

In an earlier life, I had the honor and duty as an editorial board member at the Charlotte Observer, of helping interview all the city and county candidates as part of the editorial endorsement process. You might be surprised to learn:

How many candidates are crazy as loons. People who complain about editorial pages’ so-called bias (hey, they are PAID to have opinions) sometimes concoct intricate conspiracy theories about some endorsements, when the truth is that you really don’t want to endorse a nut bucket, yet you can’t call someone a nut bucket without risking a libel suit. The good news is that usually the nut buckets don’t make it through the primary. And in my experience, looniness crosses all party lines.
How hard it is to get candidates to take a position. Sure, some will be forthright. But too many won’t go beyond being in favor of low taxes, fighting crime and loving barbecue and sweet tea.

Today I spotted the always-revealing local candidate questionnaire from the local real estate and development community political action committee known as SPPACE. Click here for a link to it. This may shock you, but sometimes candidates will put one thing in the questionnaire for developers and something else entirely in the questionnaire for, say, an environmental group.

And later, I had an email from an acquaintance who’s putting together a Charlotte City Council candidate forum for her neighborhood and wanted some ideas for questions that might – if she is lucky – elicit answers that go beyond predictable rhetoric. Here’s what I came up with. If you encounter any Charlotte candidates and want to ask them any of these, you’re welcome to:

1. Does the Charlotte-Mecklenburg zoning ordinance need an overhaul, as the city is considering? Please explain your answer.

2. With annexation no longer possible and with the majority of single-family residences in the city having stayed the same or lost value in the most recent revaluation, what should the city do to protect and enhance its tax base?

3. Traffic is only going to get worse. The historic practice of “just add more lanes” is expensive and disruptive in established neighborhoods. What should the city do to boost mobility?

4. More than half the city’s property tax revenue comes from the pie-shaped wedge lying south of uptown. Is that a problem? Why or why not? If it’s a problem, what should be done about it?

Getting creative with Blue Line Extension design

This is about something that was not the big headline from the Charlotte City Council tonight.

The big news, of course, was that the council passed a new budget that raises the city’s property tax rate by a little more than 3 cents, from 43.7 cents per $100 assessed value to 46.86 cents, to pay for a huge bundle of building projects. Those projects include a cross-city bike/ped trail, renovating Bojangles Coliseum (the original 1950s Charlotte Coliseum on Independence Boulevard), building a new 911 call center, and so on. (Read more here. And here’s a link to the city’s budget department.)

But during the dinner meeting, the council heard a short presentation from a couple of planners about an idea to help the new light rail line look a little better than the first one, the Lynx Blue Line. “Some of the components of the Blue Line we wish that we could have done better,” Planning Director Debra Campbell said. So for the Blue Line Extension, city planners and the Charlotte Area Transit System are looking to use some of the already budgeted art-in-transit funds to dress up a number of the walls, bridges and other light rail equipment whose design can range from boring to bleak.

Example of a standard wall finish (taken from tonight’s slide presentation) is above, right.

Now, however, designs have been drawn for concrete for walls that is molded with a flowered pattern. Here’s an example of a typical wall, and then the one CATS and the city hope to build, instead. (All images courtesy of the City of Charlotte.)

And the nicer way to build a wall:

Here’s a rendering of how some of the more artistically designed walls might look:

The light rail bridge that will be built over Harris Boulevard near UNC Charlotte could have an artistic railing, with a pitcher plant design on the piers:

And, for about the 200th time, council member Andy Dulin complained about the gray and orange color scheme on the bridges along the already built Lynx light rail line. Those colors were chosen by artists, he said, and he thinks they are unattractive. I don’t always agree with Dulin but he is spot on in this assessment. The color that was supposed to conjure the red clay soil of the region instead conjures a Home Depot sign. The blue-gray of the Southern sky is more like battleship gray.

The planners assured Dulin that orange and gray would not be used.

New city manager, new streetcar plan?

Will a new name, a new tie-in to the county’s overall transit plan, and a new funding scheme using no property tax money mean a new outcome that puts an expanded streetcar project into the “yes” column with the Charlotte City Council? (see my article at PlanCharlotte.org).

(Other news coverage from Erik Spanberg of the Charlotte Business Journal is here, and from the Charlotte Observer’s Steve Harrison here. For those of you who don’t get the print edition, Harrison’s article was splashed in a major way atop the front page.)

Among the many questions yet to be answered:

Changing minds? Will any of the six council members who last year opposed the streetcar change their minds, now that it’s being paid for without property taxes and will, presumably, have the blessing of the Metropolitan Transit Commission? Council member Patrick Cannon, who is expected to run for mayor, told me those two things make it easier for him to support the streetcar. Note, however, he did not give an unequivocal “Yes, I’ll support it.”

Thumb on scale at USDOT? Would having Mayor Anthony Foxx running the U.S. Department of Transportation (he’s been nominated but not yet confirmed) increase the chances of the streetcar winning federal transit funding, from either the New Starts or the Small Starts pots of funds?

New name? As new (since April 1) City Manager Ron Carlee told the council Monday night, “The streetcar is not a toy….” By renaming it the CityLynx Gold Line the city hopes to make the point that it’s just one part of the larger transit system strategy. Memo to city: The new name is TOO LONG.

Carlee, city staff, and the CEO of the Charlotte Area Transit System, Carolyn Flowers, teamed to give a presentation Monday night at the council’s dinner meeting, signaling a new approach to the controversial streetcar proposal. Last June, the council’s disagreements over the streetcar helped scuttle a larger proposal for a five-year capital projects plan.

Carlee said he thought the streetcar expansion project – adding 2.5 miles to an already-funded 1.5-mile streetcar “starter” project – would compete well for federal funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Which mayors weighed in on airport issue?

More regional voices are diving into the issue of who should control the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. This morning’s Charlotte Observer has an article from Jim Morrill, “Mayors urge delay on airport bill.”

The article quotes Miles Atkins of Mooresville saying a dozen mayors at a regular meeting last week of a group called the Regional Conference of Mayors Central Carolinas Advisory Board

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/04/25/4003485/mayors-urge-delay-on-airport-bill.html#storylink=cpy

discussed the issue with Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx.

It also quotes Matthews Mayor Jim Taylor as concerned that the airport bill is another example “of those in Raleigh trying to whittle away at local control.

“We’re just asking them … to hold off making a decision so there is additional time to investigate all the ramifications with all parties at the table,” Taylor said. “We keep hearing they (Charlotte) have done something wrong, but we don’t know any details.

“We want to know specifically what is driving the need for this legislation. We haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer.”

The sponsors of the bill, N.C. Sen. Bob Rucho and N.C. Rep. Bill Brawley, are also from Matthews.

According to Morrill, the mayors who signed a letter to N.C. House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, urging delay on the bill were: Atkins of Mooresville, Taylor of Matthews, plus:

Belmont Mayor Richard Boyce
Spencer Mayor Jody Everhart
Waxhaw Mayor Daune Gardner
Statesville Mayor Costi Kutteh

The issue has created discussion throughout the Charlotte region about regional cooperation. To read more:
Regional cooperation at risk?
Threatened revote on bypass didn’t happen
and, from the Observer:
Emotions high over airport authority push

Threatened revote on bypass didn’t happen

While I was heading out of town last week, the threatened move by Charlotte, planned for Wednesday night, to revisit a vote of support for the Monroe Bypass did not take place.

Robert Cook, secretary to the transportation planning group formerly known as MUMPO (see “MUMPO no more“) reports that, indeed, Charlotte City Council member Michael Barnes told the group that he did not intend to raise the Monroe Bypass issue at the meeting.

Here’s the background on the issue: “Charlotte council, smarting over airport resolutions, threatens Monroe Bypass.”

And here’s the Sunday article from The Charlotte Observer’s Jim Morrill, “Emotions high over airport authority push.” He was at the legislative building on Wednesday as city officials and legislators were discussing whether this vote – which was to have been symbolic only, not actually a vote on revoking funding for the project – should happen.

Meanwhile, for those of you following the political soap opera around Charlotte’s airport, the Airport Advisory Committee has been asked to attend the 5 p.m. Charlotte City Council dinner meeting.

The council’s agenda packet includes a complete list of Airport Advisory Committee members, including who appointed them and when, and when their terms end. Want to see? And here’s a link to download the full council agenda. The Airport Advisory Committee agenda item is on page 5 of the PDF document. And here’s the Observer’s take on the impetus for today’s meeting: Charlotte City Council to grill airport board over power struggle.

Charlotte council, smarting over airport resolutions, threatens Monroe Bypass

Charlotte City Council is threatening to withdraw its support for the proposed Monroe Bypass in a key, regional transportation planning group. And one council member suggested the city should rethink its regional participation in other regional groups, including the Charlotte Regional Partnership.

Council members Monday night directed their representative to MUMPO (Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Agency) to seek a revote on a MUMPO resolution supporting the bypass. (Update Tuesday, 4/16: The vote at issue is a March 20 “Resolution to Support Prompt Action for the Construction of the Monroe Bypass.” It was not a vote on whether to fund the bypass. It has been in the Long Range Transportation Plan since 2002, MUMPO Secretary Robert Cook told me Tuesday afternoon. This paragraph has been edited to clarify that point.)

Why the switch? It’s all part of continuing anger (a more accurate word might be “livid”) among Charlotte council members over a bill in the legislature that would strip the city of its control of Charlotte/Douglas International Airport by creating a state-appointed regional authority and transfer the airport-owned property to the state. County commissioners in Union, Gaston, Lincoln and Iredell counties have passed resolutions supporting the bill. None of them talked with Charlotte city officials before taking those votes. (See “Regional counties jump into airport fray, support regional board” and “Charlotte airport fight pits city against region.”)

Last week, council member David Howard told the Charlotte Observer: “It makes you not want to get involved in regional efforts at all.” Howard told the Observer he wondered whether Charlotte should continue to support the construction of the Garden Parkway and the Monroe Connector-Bypass – two toll roads proposed for Gaston and Union counties, whose boards voted in favor of the airport authority bill.

Howard is the Charlotte City Council representative to MUMPO and Monday he told council members that his vote to support the Monroe Bypass resolution came before the Union County vote in favor of taking Charlotte airport control away from Charlotte. Howard suggested that the council should direct its MUMPO representative to seek a MUMPO revote on the resolution. On a motion from council member Warren Cooksey, the council did just that, unanimously.

Because MUMPO votes are weighted according to population, Charlotte has 16 votes. All the other entities have a total of 22 votes. In other words, it’s fairly easy for Charlotte to carry a vote.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/04/12/3976877/charlotte-airport-fight-pits-city.html#storylink=cpy

The next MUMPO meeting is 7 p.m. Wednesday, and Howard can’t attend. Council member Michael Barnes will represent Charlotte at that meeting. Barnes said he would offer a motion Wednesday noting that Howard had sought direction from the full city council and the council had directed its MUMPO representative to seek a revote on the issue of support for the Monroe Bypass. The decision whether to have a revote would come Wednesday, and the actual revote would be a month later.

A few minutes before Howard brought up the Monroe Bypass, council member Andy Dulin asked city staff for information about how much money the city spends on regional groups, including the Centralina Council of Governments and the Charlotte Regional Partnership, a 16-county economic development agency. “If we talk about COG we got to talk about the Regional Partnership,” he said.

No council action was taken on that suggestion.

Tanger outlet mall wants public money

The developers for the much-ballyhooed Tanger/Simon outlet mall proposed for southwest Mecklenburg County are seeking some $5 million in property tax rebates from the city and the county. The Charlotte City Council a few minutes ago voted unanimously to send the proposal to its Economic Development Committee, which meets Thursday.

(Update, Tuesday, Feb. 19: Read more about the request in this article in today’s Charlotte Observer. “Developer seeks $5 million in tax breaks for Steele Creek outlet mall.” For those who don’t see the physical newspaper, this was the biggest front-page headline, making it the lead Page 1 article.)

Attorney Jeff Brown, who represents the developers, told me the request is for $5.1 million, to be repaid over 10 years, plus 3.2 percent interest. In other words, the developer would be paid through the expected increase in property tax revenues if the shopping center is built. The site is in unincorporated Mecklenburg County, not yet inside the city limits, although it’s expected to be annexed through voluntary annexation.

It’s not unusual for the City Council to grant such arrangements, especially if a developer puts in infrastructure such as new street improvements. However, the county has been wary of entering such arrangements, especially for retail developments. One high-ranking county official said it would be the first time that sort of incentive has been given for retail; I’m sitting in a City Council meeting and can’t check that out this minute.

The Mecklenburg board of county commissioners is scheduled to discuss the request Tuesday, Brown said.
Here’s more on the outlet mall.
And here’s a link to the rezoning request. At the public hearing (going on right now) on the rezoning, the Steele Creek Residents’ Association said they’re OK with the rezoning.

Sitting right in front of me is a row of city and county water quality and erosion-control staffers, including Rusty Rozzelle, who heads the county’s water quality section, and John Geer, who heads the city’s erosion control department. They’ve not spoken yet, so they may just be here in case questions arise.

But here’s a link to a strong article in Sunday’s Charlotte Observer, by environmental reporter Bruce Henderson, about how development in southwest Mecklenburg has all but destroyed Brown’s Cove.

The underlying message is that even when developers follow “the rules” by and large, sedimentation still destroys the lake’s coves. Council member Michael Barnes just said that he’s seen the silt fences and seen the mud sometimes just overrun them. The anti-Tanger segment of the audience just applauded. And Rusty Rozzelle, sitting in front of me, nodded his head at that applause.

Dale Stewart of the site-plannng firm LandDesign is now describing the extra water protection measures they are planning. LandDesign’s Meg Nealon sits on the Charlotte planning commission, which will make a recommendation to the City Council on this proposal. Why is the city taking the lead on a development not in the city limits? Because so little undeveloped county land remains that is not inside Charlotte but is inside the city’s so-called “sphere of influence,” (the area eventually to be annexed) that the county has agreed to let the city have planning and zoning jurisdiction in those areas.