The TOD ordinance is written so that when an NCOD and a TOD are placed on the same property, the TOD standard controls.
5 Likes
The TOD zoning overlay text says that it supersedes NCODs. But in general, private HOA covenants override zoning (unless they’re unenforceable, like racial covenants, or unless they expire).
4 Likes
Something I saw on Twitter today made me think of those big lots.
Dude is putting 120ish units on a 24,900sqft ~ 0.57 acre lot. Could do one (of you got the height allowed) on any of those 0.7 acre min site.
11 Likes
Would be cool to have a 5 over 1 competition for local architecture firms to see who could design the best one. This one looks really nice.
4 Likes
Rough dimensions… this would’ve fit at Five Points combining the service station with the Marathon gas station. The suburban 5/3 Bank they built instead could’ve gone on the ground floor.
3 Likes
We had the apartment madness competition last year . . . March is fast approaching. What should we make brackets for this time around? 
3 Likes
Saved that rendering to show to my architect!
What makes it pencil is lots of small units, and not much parking - 400-800 sq ft apiece, with almost half <500’ studios. 92 parking spaces in basement and ground floor, since basements are common that far north. It’s right next to a light rail stop but in an all-SFH context, despite a lovely regional park across the way. The site did require a rezoning.
Looking around that site, here’s more handsomeness by the same architect, 32 units in 4 stories (including parking podium) on 1/3 acre.
4 Likes
Even that Linden 44 development with 32 units only has 26 parking spots (48 bikes). It is for retirees though. Presumably less car demand?
2 Likes
The developer/guy who tweeted said that Minnneapolis has removed all parking requirements and he building stuff near the light rail stations, so he is going for it with more walkable and less car centric development types.
6 Likes
I can’t help but wonder if foregoing parking only adds profit to the developers’ bottom lines? Will developers create more affordable housing for citizens, or keep prices the same while reducing their costs by not providing parking on either additional land or in expensive garages?
5 Likes
I hear that concern a lot, but it’s not how development works. This article estimates that “free” parking costs the average renter $1,700 a year (and Raleigh had ridonkulously high apartment parking requirements until very recently - more than 1 space per bedroom!!!)
As a developer, ultimately I need to build some parking, because my customers expect it. There’s no requirement that I provide dishwashers, either, but I will because that’s expected. But those renters who are willing to forego parking for a $200/month savings have no choice in the matter. Instead of having that choice, they either have to pay extra for nothing, or just not rent at all. (And because Raleigh still required one space per bedroom for an apartment, it’s not even like getting a roommate would help!)
13 Likes
I have a fairly specific question, but I’m really curious about this and just can’t figure it out so I’m hoping someone here can offer some insight.
We just got a notice in the mail about a TOD public meeting because our street is affected. I was poking around looking, and our street is chopped in half with half being affected and the other half not being affected. (Here is the TOD map: https://ral.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/lookup/index.html?appid=5a0da17620d24057a85c283546e17837)
Check out S Saunders where it dead ends at Cabarrus. Does this make sense to anyone? All of the homes on Saunders and Rosengarten are single family homes and all are zoned the same way. So why split the zoning in half midway down the street? Also both of the properties that front West and Cabarrus directly behind us are zoned mixed use, so I really can’t understand why one was included and the other one wasn’t.
Just trying to wrap my head around this and potential implications…
1 Like
I’m thinking it has to do with the allowable buffer. Parcels falling with 1000’ (guessing on the feet) are included.
5 Likes
Ahhh gotcha. I guess I’m 1001’ away then 
Thank you!
2 Likes
NP. also it looks like if any portion of a parcel are in the buffer, they are included, that’s why some shaded areas seem so far
2 Likes
If they are planning to rebuilt Heritage Park without:
- Ideally, phasing construction to minimize or eliminate displacement beyond a resident moving from one unit, to a similar unit in a newly constructed building, onsite at the new Heritage Park
- Guaranteeing temporary housing at the same rent under the same terms (sorry, Section 8 vouchers ain’t enough) for all current residents who must unavoidably be temporarily displaced during construction
- Guaranteeing right to return for ALL residents who must unavoidably be temporarily displaced
Then I’ll gladly show up at the meeting, pitchfork in hand! I mean- COME ON!
My understanding is, though, that they plan to do all of these things.
I think anything less than 1000 units is a tragic waste of this site. 2000 units would be more like it, but even that might be a little low. Whatever, there should be A. LOT. OF. HOUSING. here. Lots of 30% AMI, Lots of 60% AMI, lots of small-a “Affordable” workforce housing, and even lots of expensive luxury units. Just LOTS. Build it ALL. JUST BUILD.
Heritage Park has a disappointing 122 units.
Rebuild it with 250 <30% AMI units, 250 30-60% AMI units, 250 60-80% AMI units, 500 market rate “Workforce” units for 80-120% AMI, and cap it off with 750 market rate “luxury” units to subsidize the rest. JUST BUILD ALL THE HOUSING
19 Likes
This is a perfect example of how we talk differently about the west side of downtown vs. the east side.
How is BRT connected with Heritage park?
It is not which just reinforces the irrational nature of these ‘gentrificationisgenocide’ bozos. They run around calling everyone a racist, thinking somehow that people who don’t own anything & are being provided housing already at taxpayer expense can dictate what the city; morevoer private business can do with their own real estate. The only reason the public housing is located where it is is because it was cheap land 50 years ago because white folks were moving out of the city core and there was nothing else to do with the land…today that’s changing.
1 Like