Abandoned Big Boxes (Charlotte: apartments, credit, landscaping)

[BarbJ]

How do you all feel about the abandoned big boxes that scar the Charlotte landscape? Should the City of Charlotte be doing something to protect the landscape from this blight in the future? Should it be doing something to force the removal of those abandoned structures which already exist? I was reading through some city ordinances from our neighboring state of Georgia (among others) and found several interesting ordinances aimed at controlling the big boxes. Here's a sample. Note that the question of tree cover is also addressed.

City of College Park (Georgia)
In December of 2003, the City of College Park amended its zoning rules to create a category for “especially large buildings” This big box ordinance applies to new structures over 30, 000 square feet, as well as to non-conforming existing structures over 15,000 square feet which are left vacant for at least six months. Additionally, the ordinance sets a retail cap on new structures over 60,000 feet.81 The College Park ordinance is notable because it is the first ordinance in Georgia to specify strict design and pedestrian scale requirements for big box development. Also, it provides for the analysis of local noise and visual impacts, as well as regional traffic impacts.

The College Park ordinance requires that the facade and exterior walls be designed to include projections and recessions, to reduce the massive scale and uniform appearance of traditional big box development. Similarly, street frontage must be designed to include windows, arcades, or awnings for at least 60% of the façade. Additional specifications address the number and variation in rooflines, appropriate building materials and colors, the clear indication of entryways, and the inclusion of pedestrian scale amenities and spaces. Machinery equipment, outdoor sales, trash collection areas, and parking structure facades must be screened in a manner consistent with the overall design of the building and landscaping. Delivery and loading areas must be designed so as to minimize visual and noise impacts. Submission of a noise mitigation plan is required. A landscape buffer, which includes canopy trees, is required for all sites which adjoin residential uses or zones. Street access is limited to major arterial roads as specified by a master plan. Additional requirements specify that parking areas should be distributed around large buildings in an attempt to shorten the distance to other surrounding buildings, public sidewalks, and transit stops. Sidewalks must be provided along the full length of any building where it adjoins a parking lot. Sidewalks must also connect store entrances to transit stops, and to nearby neighborhoods. All applicants must also submit a traffic impact study, and an outdoor lighting report which provides information on how outdoor lighting will be accomplished to minimize the impacts on adjacent properties. The College Park ordinance addresses the risk of future abandonment by requiring the submission to the city of a performance bond equal to 110% of the estimated cost of removal of the structure. Such a bond could be utilized to demolish the structure if 70% of floor area of the structure remains unoccupied for more than six months. The City of College Park has had no threatened or actual litigation regarding its big box ordinance.

Quoted from: Land Use Clinic
University of Georgia School of Law and College of Environment & Design
December 2004, Updated February 2007

[amploud]

Originally Posted by BarbJ

A couple of days ago I posted a thread about abandoned big boxes...

Barb, I totally agree with your view on this. One of my close friends is an architect. We've chatted about such issues several times. Neither of us favor much government intervention in such matters, but it does seem like the only way sometimes. One major downside is that it will probably limit economic growth.

Some ideas we've discussed:
1. Require the building to be designed to accommodate other types business, apartments, etc. when the original tenant no longer uses the facility.

2. Reclaim one year of gov't provided incentives/credit for every year the building sits vacant. This is mainly meant to discourage business from jumping from area to area for better "corporate welfare."

3. Require the business and developer to submit a long term plan for the premises outlining what future options exist.

4. If the answer to #3 is abandonment, then the business must fund an account to pay for razing the building and restoring the property to a marketable state. (or build a park or green space.)

None of these are perfect ideas, but they are a start. I think this should be applied to much more than big boxes though! Being from the mid west, I am very familiar with seeing blocks and blocks of abandoned buildings in the cities. I've often been amazed how good a TV crew can make those cities look during televised sporting events when in reality the city is a dump!

[BarbJ]

Thanks for you reply, Amploud. I appreciate its thoughtfulness and like your ideas. I'd love to see a discussion of this get out in the community. Now is the perfect time with elections coming up. It's always surprising to me that when a few people begin discussing an idea, how after a relatively short time it becomes acceptable, even old news. Let's start getting this kind of talk out there!