Category: Dilworth

Charlotte’s lost old buildings may be costlier than we thought

Where a historic-district house once stood, in Dilworth

It’s sadly coincidental that this week, I went out to snap a photo of the lot where a vintage 1920s house in Dilworth has been demolished, just a few days after I read this article in the New York Times. The Times piece, “Urban Renewal, No Bulldozer: San Francisco repurposes old for the future,” describes how it’s San Francisco’s older buildings downtown that are luring the tech firms that so many cities – including Charlotte – hope to attract.

Charlotte’s Dilworth neighborhood is a turn-of-the-last-century streetcar suburb built a mile from the city’s uptown in an era when that was the edge of town. The section where the house was demolished is a local historic district. (This PlanCharlotte article describes growing discontent among some Dilworthians with the way that district has been managed over the past decade.)

In North Carolina, buildings in local historic districts can be demolished, as can local historic landmarks. The law says that if a city or county has a local historic district or landmarks ordinance, an appointed commission can delay
demolition by up to a year. That’s what the Historic District Commission did for the Dilworth house. But it’s a hot neighborhood, with numerous tear-downs of older, smaller homes being replaced by much larger, grander homes.

An aside: Don’t complain that the neighbors who don’t like the demolitions are just density-fighting NIMBYs. No increased density is being created here, just more impervious surface.

The sad irony is that because Charlotte’s civic personality has never valued older buildings, the city’s uptown has hardly any of those old buildings that in San Francisco are being upfitted. They’ve all been demolished because local development policies,shaped in large part by builders of tall office towers, never pushed for policies that would have better protected some of the older, smaller buildings: height limits, for instance, in parts of uptown, and restrictions on surface parking lots.

If you want to look for tech firms and start-ups that like the funky older buildings, you can visit uptown’s Packard Place, but in general you’ll have to widen your search far beyond uptown. Look to the old, industrial fringes of South End. Look along North Tryon Street and into Optimist Park, Belmont and Villa Heights, just north of the I-277 freeway loop, as well as up North Davidson Street. Look at the Plaza-Central business district, and beyond. Cast an eye on the city’s smaller, overlooked spots. That’s where those valued old building remain.

But with so little protection from city policy, will those spots remain? And it’s sadly ironic that Dilworth – the first of the city’s once-fading close-in neighborhoods to rebuild itself with 1970s urban pioneers – is now being devoured with demolitions.

Protest petitions going the way of buggy whips

If you’ve paid attention to Charlotte planning and zoning matters you know the powerful role that protest petitions have played in stopping rezonings that neighbors oppose. The N.C. legislature is moving rapidly toward eliminating protest petitions.

It’s part of a larger bill that would remove a number of local environmental regulations that are stronger than state regulations. The bill passed the N.C. House on Thursday. (“Bill eliminates protest-petition rights in zoning cases“) It now goes back to the N.C. Senate, which passed it without the protest petition section.

Here’s a synopsis of the action, from the blog of Charlotte’s Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition. It notes how many local legislators in both parties voted for the bill, which would, among other things, scrap a key local storm-water pollution ordinance. “House passes landmark regulatory reform package.”

The protest petition is a 90-year-old section of state law that has let adjoining property owners file official protests against proposed rezonings. If enough of these protests are deemed valid, then that rezoning can’t pass without a three-quarters vote from the elected body which in Charlotte is the City Council. In development-happy Charlotte, the provision occasionally means the defeat of rezonings that would otherwise pass, although the council OKs the overwhelming majority of proposed rezonings.

Here’s an editorial from the Greensboro News & Record about the bill: http://www.news-record.com/opinion/n_and_r_editorials/article_41619342-ea81-11e2-b870-0019bb30f31a.html

The editorial says: “… There was no chance for compromise, just a wholesale repeal with little warning.

“In principle, the action contradicts what the Republican legislature has done in regard to involuntary annexations. It has empowered affected residents to call for a referendum. This measure takes power from residents.

“But some developers don’t like protest petitions because it’s harder for them to advance projects that neighbors don’t want. They’re “costly and hinder development,” Rep. Rob Bryan, R-Mecklenburg, said Thursday.”

It’s part of a bill that state planners are calling the “Billboards Forever” bill. Read this report from The Charlotte Observer’s Jim Morrill: http://campaigntracker.blogspot.com/2013/07/surprises-not-surpising-near-sessions.html

Walgreens and the ‘urban’ zoning that isn’t

I’m sitting at the zoning committee of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission listening to the committee – an advisory body only – discuss whether to recommend a rezoning needed for a controversial, proposed stand-alone Walgreens pharmacy on the edge of the historic Dilworth neighborhood and abutting its historic district. (See “Dilworth wary of proposed Walgreens.”)

There’s a lot of discussion, led generally by planning commissioner Lucia Griffith, an architect, about the proposed drive-through window the Walgreens would build. An aside: The property is in a pedestrian overlay district, a zoning category intended to make a more pedestrian-friendly area. Drive-throughs, with driveways and vehicles going in and out, are generally accepted as not pedestrian-friendly. Yet they are allowed in this pedestrian district. Whatever. (Want to read the rezoning petition? Click here.)

But here’s the larger issue that I don’t hear anyone discussing. The property is now zoned for O-2, for office development, and is in a PED (the overlay) zoning.* That zoning would allow an office building, and if it was larger than 30,000 square feet it could include a small bit of retail, but it would take approximately 40,000* 80,000 square feet of office space to allow as much retail space as the Walgreens wants – 16,000 square feet. So in order to have a stand-alone, one-story Walgreens with a drive-through lane, the developers are asking for – wait for it – a more urban zoning category.

Yes, you read that right. The extremely suburban form of a stand-alone, one-story, drive-through pharmacy needs a zoning category called Mixed-Use-Development District, or MUDD. That whole zoning category was created to allow more urban-style development in the city.
The planners at some point in the negotiations asked the developer to create a more “urban” design, and now they say the developer has complied, because the formerly blank walls will have more articulations and “architectural features.”

I am still waiting for a planning staffer or a planning commissioner to push for a truly urban design, which would have a multi-use building, that meets the sidewalk, with ground-floor retail space with windows and door on the sidewalk, offices and/or residences above.

Whether the Walgreens is or isn’t a good idea for that corner is a whole separate question. Seems to me a Walgreens in a true city building is a whole different question from a cookie-cutter suburban Walgreens in a historic nighborhood and in what is supposedly a pedestrian-friendly district.

The bigger question is why the zoning for an urban-style development allows an extremely suburban style of building.

Seems the Mixed-Use zoning should produce actual mixed use development, not an office-only building plopped next to a drug-story-only building, separated by a driveway and parking lot. That’s what we’ve been getting for decades all over the city, and we call it auto-oriented suburban sprawl.

Two end notes:
1. Walgreens consultant Walter Fields, when I asked him recently why the developers didn’t just propose a multi-use building with retail on the ground floor and offices above – what’s built in real cities all over the world – he said that to do such a larger building would require a lot more parking, which would require a parking deck, which would be too expensive. I’d love to hear other developers’ thoughts about that.

2. Lucia Griffith moves for, and wins, a 30-day delay to let the developers and the neighborhood talk more about how the lighting would affect the neighbors, to rework the drive-through exit, and to ensure that the site plan restricts the retail use on the site to a pharmacy. She asks them also to work on the “urban character,” but isn’t specific about what that means.

* Corrected to account for what O-2 zoning allows if it’s in a pedestrian overlay district. Friday, Oct. 5, 1:15 p.m.)

Planning commissioners get tough

Here’s a heartening (well, sort of, as you’ll see) little event that took place at a little-heralded government meeting this week. It involves planning commissioners pushing to get a better outcome on a proposed rezoning.

The rezoning in question involves a highly visible corner at East Boulevard and Scott Avenue, in the heart of the Dilworth neighborhood’s commercial district. If you’ve lived in Charlotte for a long time, you’ll remember it as the site of the still-missed Epicurean Restaurant, home of fabulous steaks and The World’s Best Biscuits, small morsels of buttery heaven which perfectly trained waiters brought around to your table throughout the evening, so you ended up consuming several thousand calories in biscuits alone, along with your steak and potato.

The Epicurean closed about 12 years ago. The Castanas family that’s owned the property since 1959 tried to redevelop the site in the late 1990s but couldn’t get the financing, owner George Castanas told me on Wednesday.

They want to put a parking lot at that key intersection. (Actually, people have been parking there already, in violation of existing zoning, NS, which doesn’t allow parking lots.) So they’re seeking a rezoning. It’s complicated, involving something called a “Pedscape Overlay” for East Boulevard. But the upshot is that the new zoning category they seek would require an improved, wider sidewalk along East. The owners want to keep the same old sidewalk, which a Charlotte DOT staffer estimated at 5 feet with a small planting strip, or none, depending on where you look.

The planning staff is OK with letting the rezoning go forward without an improved sidewalk. Indeed, because the rezoning would be to something called “optional” – B-1 (PED-O) instead of B-1 (PED) – the better sidewalk wouldn’t, technically, required. The “optional” means you can do pretty much what you want as long as the city will let you get away with it. (Some optional options are more palatable than others, of course.)

Throwing aside the larger question of why you’d have a supposedly pedestrian-friendly zoning standard (i.e. PED) at one of the key intersections in the main commercial area of one of the city’s most historic neighborhoods that allows a surface parking lot — after all, can you say “pedscape”? – why didn’t the planning staff at least push the owners to improve that bad sidewalk?

At Wednesday’s meeting of the Zoning Committee (which is a sub-set of the appointed Planning Commission, the one that makes recommendations to the City Council on rezoning petitions) several commissioners began pushing the staff on this very question. Nina Lipton, Tracy Dodson, Greg Phipps and Claire Fallon all chimed in, diplomatically, of course, to suggest that something better for the public could be accomplished. The planners’ point had been that the parking lot isn’t likely to be the permanent development at that corner, so whatever happens now is likely just interim.

But commissioners Lipton and Fallon both questioned how long “interim” might be, since the lot’s been sitting undeveloped for 12 years already.

With the property owner really wanting that parking lot, and really needing a rezoning to make the parking lot legal, the planners actually have some leverage in this case. Yet they didn’t appear to have tried to use it.

In the end, the Zoning Committee voted to delay making their recommendation on the rezoning until September to give the property owner time to “work with the neighborhood” – i.e. the Dilworth community association – to come up with an idea that’s closer to the spirit of the pedscape designs.

Planning commissioners get tough

Here’s a heartening (well, sort of, as you’ll see) little event that took place at a little-heralded government meeting this week. It involves planning commissioners pushing to get a better outcome on a proposed rezoning.

The rezoning in question involves a highly visible corner at East Boulevard and Scott Avenue, in the heart of the Dilworth neighborhood’s commercial district. If you’ve lived in Charlotte for a long time, you’ll remember it as the site of the still-missed Epicurean Restaurant, home of fabulous steaks and The World’s Best Biscuits, small morsels of buttery heaven which perfectly trained waiters brought around to your table throughout the evening, so you ended up consuming several thousand calories in biscuits alone, along with your steak and potato.

The Epicurean closed about 12 years ago. The Castanas family that’s owned the property since 1959 tried to redevelop the site in the late 1990s but couldn’t get the financing, owner George Castanas told me on Wednesday.

They want to put a parking lot at that key intersection. (Actually, people have been parking there already, in violation of existing zoning, NS, which doesn’t allow parking lots.) So they’re seeking a rezoning. It’s complicated, involving something called a “Pedscape Overlay” for East Boulevard. But the upshot is that the new zoning category they seek would require an improved, wider sidewalk along East. The owners want to keep the same old sidewalk, which a Charlotte DOT staffer estimated at 5 feet with a small planting strip, or none, depending on where you look.

The planning staff is OK with letting the rezoning go forward without an improved sidewalk. Indeed, because the rezoning would be to something called “optional” – B-1 (PED-O) instead of B-1 (PED) – the better sidewalk wouldn’t, technically, required. The “optional” means you can do pretty much what you want as long as the city will let you get away with it. (Some optional options are more palatable than others, of course.)

Throwing aside the larger question of why you’d have a supposedly pedestrian-friendly zoning standard (i.e. PED) at one of the key intersections in the main commercial area of one of the city’s most historic neighborhoods that allows a surface parking lot — after all, can you say “pedscape”? – why didn’t the planning staff at least push the owners to improve that bad sidewalk?

At Wednesday’s meeting of the Zoning Committee (which is a sub-set of the appointed Planning Commission, the one that makes recommendations to the City Council on rezoning petitions) several commissioners began pushing the staff on this very question. Nina Lipton, Tracy Dodson, Greg Phipps and Claire Fallon all chimed in, diplomatically, of course, to suggest that something better for the public could be accomplished. The planners’ point had been that the parking lot isn’t likely to be the permanent development at that corner, so whatever happens now is likely just interim.

But commissioners Lipton and Fallon both questioned how long “interim” might be, since the lot’s been sitting undeveloped for 12 years already.

With the property owner really wanting that parking lot, and really needing a rezoning to make the parking lot legal, the planners actually have some leverage in this case. Yet they didn’t appear to have tried to use it.

In the end, the Zoning Committee voted to delay making their recommendation on the rezoning until September to give the property owner time to “work with the neighborhood” – i.e. the Dilworth community association – to come up with an idea that’s closer to the spirit of the pedscape designs.

What’s happening to East Boulevard?

A neighborhood activist in Dilworth tipped me off to property that’s changed hands along East Boulevard, at the corner of Garden Terrace and East, where East Boulevard Bar and Grill has lodged for decades. EBB&G is moving (has moved?) up the street.

Word on the street is that Carolinas Medical Center bought that property and has “plans.” I know a meeting is planned in coming weeks between hospital officials and Dilworth neighborhood leaders.

This much I know to be true: Many Dilworthians worry about the hospital’s continuing expansion. Yes, expanding is understandable for a large, urban medical center. But CMC’s campus so far is a suburban office-park-style configuration: lots of surface parking lots, parking decks with no other uses, oversteet walkways, grass that isn’t a public park where you can play Frisbee or have a picnic, etc. etc. Not suitable for an in-town neighborhood.

But even if new buildings are better designed, as I hope to see, CMC’s campus is still a gigantic single-use footprint. In an urban setting, that’s not a good thing.

The city’s zoning standards allow suburban office-park parking and other suburban-style hospital uses in any neighborhood if the property is zoned for office or commercial, etc.

Some of this block is zoned multifamily, so maybe there will be a chance for neighborhood and/or planner input. Let us hope. But a scroll through the Carolinas HealthCare System’s board of directors shows a lot of big names – the kinds that too often make elected officials bark prettily, lie down and roll over.

A check of online property records for parcels in the old EBB&G block (which includes the site of the former Chez Daniel restaurant, among other businesses) lists as owner Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, a well-connected law firm (Russell Robinson, Robert Sink, Richard Vinroot, etc.)

I checked with a helpful city planner, who knew of no conversations about development plans for the block.

In September, the Observer’s Karen Garloch reported that CHS president and COO Joe Piemonte said the hospital system didn’t have specific plans for its East Boulevard property. “We’re kind of standing pat … and monitoring very closely for maintenance. Some of those buildings need to be torn down,” he said then.

My picks for best places to stand in Charlotte

I asked your opinions – and thanks for sharing, everyone – but didn’t give mine.

Yesterday I pointed to a list (link here to blog, and here to list) about the best places to stand in the U.S. and asked about Charlotte spots. But I didn’t include any of my own choices. These things require pondering, you know.

I concur with those who mentioned Queens Road and the cathedral of oaks, and the magnificent corner of Kingston and Lyndhurst avenues (see photo above) in Dilworth. Indeed, I spotlighted both places in a piece I wrote some years back about Great Streets in Charlotte. Brevard Court uptown was another in that series.

My favorite spots to stand in Charlotte (for today, at least) are listed below. Note, I’m including only inside the city limits, so Crowders Mountain is out, as well as various funky downtowns in other municipalities like Matthews or Davidson. And ask me tomorrow and I may have a completely different list. NoDa on a gallery crawl night is great. Looking out from the 60th floor of the BofA Corporate Center is great – but not open to the public.

Here’s my list:

3. In line at Price’s Chicken Coop (at left) just after you’ve bought a quarter-dark dinner (or chicken livers) with tater tots and the hot grease is just starting to soak through the cardboard box.

2. The vaulted passage way alongside The Green uptown – one of the best designed spaces in the city. It just makes you feel grand to walk down it. The fans overhead are a nice touch for a hot climate.

1. Inside the First Presbyterian Church sanctuary on the Sunday before Christmas, with the old burnished wood, the royal blue carpets and cushions, as the brass and timpani and cymbals play and everyone is singing “Joy To The World.”