The following notes (edited) was provided by Paul Davis:
Meeting very well attended. Homeowners were turned away from the door after reaching 200. More public community meetings were promised to accommodate those who could not get in. Fire Marshall.
Developer started meeting with introductions and a 20-to-25-minute slide presentation regarding the proposed development. That included a development overview, max of 640 units (all rentals), over 55 section and assisted living units. Stated “no” low-income units. Not sure this will hold up with the city council.
Following the presentation, it was opened up to questions and concerns from the audience. Many in the audience were very well informed and had read most of the available materials regarding this development.
As a best guess estimate, probably 60/40 were concerns with the flawed traffic study. The developer group did not do well in defending that study. Improvements seem to be limited to extra turn lanes on Rea and Elm intersections with Pineville Matthews Road. Totally inadequate.
Attendees questioned the methodology of the traffic study, and particularly noted that traffic has increased significantly since the determination date used in the study. Was the car and bicycle traffic expected from new schools under construction taken into account? Current vehicle traffic at 130% of road capacity. How will the development at Endhaven and Elm affect the numbers? Was the impact on Bevington in Glynmoor Lakes given due consideration?
We may want to produce a video of “real time” traffic issues on Rea and Elm at those intersections, Southbound traffic at I-485 and at Bevington
Traffic light at entrance to Rea from new development. . No light on other side from development to Elm Road. Location is at a blind spot-on Elm. May want to insist the traffic light poles match existing poles and not the creosote wood poles and above ground wiring.
A lot of very passionate concerns regarding the environmental issues. Our Eagles, deer and displacement of other amphibian animals and our wet lands.
Questions regarding additional future development of another 300 units found in the language of the proposed permit. Developers insisted that would not happen.
Clarification from Ed Driggs: The site plan indicates that there will be 300 units in area A and 340 units in area B. It further notes that there will be a maximum of 500 multifamily units of any description across the entire site, not just in Area B. 500 is a sublimit within the 640, not a possible increase to 800 in total.
At one point in the meeting, the audience was asked to stand if they opposed this development. Virtually the entire room stood up.
All we hear these days is “climate change” and how it is an existential threat. Accommodating permanent population growth with more rental housing may exacerbate this threat.
Best guess is City Council meeting will be this November. The earliest a vote could be taken is December. Public hearing. The Public Hearing will be no earlier than November, the decision would be at least one month after that. Often the decision is more than a month after the Hearing.
Homeowners were there from communities North of Pineville Matthews Road. Complaints about not being notified. Developer explained the one-mile criteria. May need to make an effort to include more communities North of Highway 51 in future notices. Petitioner agreed to do this subject to the availability of contact information.
Demands for Ed to vote against this. It is not that simple. This is not a binary choice for Ed. He may be better serving us to use leverage to get concessions and vote for it.
In that CDOT and NC environmental have approved this development, need to get Ed’s help to meet with them to have them defend and explain why they approved with flawed data.
Developer talks about how closely they have worked with Parks and Recreation and the “Greenway”. Yet, their project would tear out the only remaining natural green 53 acres in south Charlotte.
No discussion about waste management.
Project will take 6 to 10 years to build out. Disruption from construction that entire time?
If more rentals are needed, can we help them look for alternatives locations. E.g.; unused mall space.
Other notes from Ed (Driggs):
- Meeting participants challenged the insertion of this type of high-density development in the midst of single-family neighborhoods
- Questions were raised as to why the units were to be rented rather than sold (petitioner said the market wants rentals.)
- Will schools have capacity for the additional students (CMS board question)?
- Petitioner noted that traffic improvements designed for 1,100 units would be implemented even if only 640 units were to be approved. The traffic study does not imply that there could be more than 640 units.
Piper Glen leadership was well represented and asked many pertinent questions. Among them were Mark Abrazino, Jim Everett and Joe (OSA VP). Joe made an effort to defend the developers and was met with calls to turn over the microphone and set back down
Garland Green did a great job of providing a comprehensive overview of our concerns.
Meeting ended around 8:30 p.m.
Tallest building is 64 feet (4 stories). In center of development.
Trees. 30% will be saved.
Safety concerns. No lights after dark.
Pedestrian paths over creek to shops of PG. No parking.
Demands for Ed (Driggs) to vote against this. It is not that simple. This is not a binary choice for Ed. He may be better serving us to use leverage to get concessions and vote for it.
In that CDOT and NC environmental have approved this development, need to get Ed helps to meet with them to have them defend and explain why they approved with flawed data
No comments:
Post a Comment