Charlotte City Council CandidateStephanie Handspent nearly 2 hours with members of the Rea Road Neighborhood Coalition on Saturday afternoon October 28th.
Stephanie Hand Charlotte City Council Candidate District 6
We toured the TPC Piper Glen golf course, Four Mile Creek Greenway and then Pooh's Corner and the 100 Acre Wood at White Oak.
We appreciate that she took time away on a Saturday from her campaign and her family to visit the Eagle's nesting area, and listen to concerns about how the rezoning of the Rea Road Gillespie Property would harm the greenway and these critical wildlife areas that surround the Gillespie Property on 3 sides.
We also discussed the need for continuity of neighborhoods, appropriate density, traffic, schools, infrastructure, public safety and the value of green space.
“Greenways and parks are more than just recreational spaces; they represent our commitment to sustainable urban development, promoting physical well-being and environmental stewardship. As an elected official, I'm dedicated to making Charlotte not just a city of building but a city of vibrant green spaces" - Stephanie Hand.
The Rea Road Neighborhood Coalition believes Charlotte residents deserve elected officials who are engaged with all of Charlotte.
Thank You Stephanie!
You can find Sustain Charlotte's 2023 Survey of Charlotte City Council District 6 Candidates here.
Charlotte's general election early voting is underway through this Saturday November 2, 2023. A listing of early voting sites in Mecklenburg County is here.
We encourage everyone to VOTE in this election and hope you will consider Stephanie Hand for Charlotte City Council District 6.
One of the more continuous subjects during both Gillespie Property Rezoning community meetings has been traffic. Those who attended the most recent meeting might recall Mr. Ranson's rather dismissive comment regarding Charlotte's traffic woes, "It's not my fault"
"Russell Ranson stated that there is an existing traffic problem. He stated that the proposed road improvements will help mitigate many of these problems. He stated that the existing traffic problems are not his fault." - Transcript
Over the past several weeks we've communicated with both Jake Carpenter and Patrick Monroe regarding the traffic counts. Much to our surprise now with the 6th review (posted on October 27 the traffic count has been increased to 4,005 up from the absurdly low 2,468.
Still about 2,000 shy of what most would consider a reasonable estimate but an improvement.
Keep in mind that city staff assume that single family detached housing generates 10 VMD (vehicle movements daily) yet multi-family apartments only generate 4.28 VMD.
Part of the reason is that apartment dwellers are more likely to use mass transit or walk to work. Never mind that the only CATS Bus Routes on Rea Road are Express. 62 X is inbound 3 times in the morning and outbound 3 times in the afternoon.
Staff also by either policy or statute don't take into consideration outside factors. Such as future growth or traffic changes. The explanation by Jake Carpenter:
Thanks for reaching out regarding rezoning 2022-121. I understand your frustrations in this area of the City.
With respect to your question about studying specific development or school projects the answer is complicated. It is a mix between traffic engineering best practices and standards, uncertainty as it relates to other development timelines and traffic patterns, and the reasonable expectations we (the City) can expect of the development team.
Our goal is to accurately measure existing traffic and project future traffic to the extent possible. If there are projects in the immediate vicinity of the rezoning project that have completed traffic studies we require the development team to include their specific traffic projections. Other projects - either smaller projects without traffic studies, or larger projects that may be located further away - are captured by estimating a future growth rate. This growth rate is based on an analysis of past growth on study area roads, and is the best representation of how traffic changes over time.
City standards, and State law, only allow us to require developments to mitigate their anticipated traffic impacts and provide safe access to and from their site. However, we attempt to work with these development teams as much as possible to mitigate existing conditions where it makes sense for the community.
With respect to your question about the Rea Road widening – the scope of those microscopic impacts are outside the bounds of a normal development traffic study considering the longer timeline, distance of that widening from the development site, and uncertain long term changes in travel patterns.
I hope I was able to give you some level of perspective on our process and decision making. Thanks for being a part of the community involvement in this and other projects.
Thanks,
Jake Carpenter, PE
Land Development Section Manager
Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte Development Center
600 East 4th Street | 6th Floor | Charlotte, NC 28202
Additionally the rather vague wording regarding traffic "improvements" remains. The proposed timing also continues to be problematic.
Rea Road and NC 51 Pineville Matthews Road (Inbound at 6:40 PM)
Clearly the pedestal bridge offered by the developer was nothing more than a carrot that really no one sees as an advantage. I suspect the wide expanse of Four Mile Creek at Rea Road would be cost prohibitive in placing the bridge streetside. Nevertheless the new alignment calls for the multi-use sidewalk to align with Rea Road for a greater distance.
The idea to move the parallel parking to the south side of Bevenington was a non-starter because the original concept allowed for east bound Bevington traffic to use the parking lot and west bound to use the street side parking.
However, there may be some leverage with continued efforts regarding traffic via the UDO because one of the guiding principles is not to cause future unplanned costs to the city. Unfortunately CDOT is not as straightforward as CMS.
Neighbors enlist a pair of bald eagles nicknamed ‘Piper’ and ‘Glen’ to fight plans for 640 homes; developer says birds won’t be harmed
A pair of American bald eagles nicknamed “Piper” (left) and “Glen” are players in a Ballantyne-area rezoning dispute. Their nest on the TPC Piper Glen golf course is approximately 900 feet from a proposed residential development. (Photo by Emilie Knight)
by Lindsey Banks
Development disputes are common in a growing city like Charlotte, and upset residents often cite the usual complaints of traffic, noise and school crowding when making their case against new projects.
One current dispute over a large apartment development in the Ballantyne area has a bit of a twist: It rides on the wings of two unlikely characters — a pair of American bald eagles that neighbors have named “Piper” and “Glen.”
The eagles’ nest sits high in a tree near the driving range at the TPC Piper Glen private country club andgolf course off Rea Road. Developer RK Investments has plans for a 640-unit development on 53 acres between Rea Road and Elm Lane — which community members say is about 900 feet from Piper and Glen’s nest.
The eagles quickly became drawn into the fight against the development and headlined a petition that has been circulating for 8 months: “Save the Eagles -- Request Charlotte City Council VOTE NO on Rea Road Rezoning.”
The petition's author, Piper Glen resident Chris McIntire, says he and other nearby residents worry that the construction will disturb the eagles’ habitat and drive them away from the area, among other wildlife and traffic concerns.
The developer regards the dust-up over the eagles as a convenient anti-development talking point and says the bird couple is not at risk.
McIntire and some other eagle advocates invited a Ledger reporter to Piper Glen to catch a glimpse of Piper and Glen.
Indeed, on the afternoon that we visited, the two eagles were perched on a tree across a pond behind the golf clubhouse. Bob Barrows, a resident who lives a few miles away and monitors the eagles, narrowed in on their white heads through his binoculars. He knows their favorite perching spots.
“Piper is the bigger one,” Barrows pointed out to the Ledger reporter, and to community members Kim Hombes and Mike Cohen.
Piper and Glen have been residents of the golf course for at least 12 years, Barrows said, and are the only known nesting pair of eagles in Charlotte. Eagles use their nests only during mating season in the winter months, and many pairs of eagles, like Piper and Glen, stay near their nesting territory year-round.
“If you go to Google and you type in ‘Rea Road’ or ‘eagles,’” McIntire told the group, “the first question that comes up [is] are there really eagles in Charlotte? And the answer is, yes.”
Soaring rhetoric: Over the last several months, many community members have banded together to urge the city council to keep the property under its current zoning, which allows for triplexes and single-family homes. The RK Investments plan includes 500 apartments and a mix of single-family houses and townhomes.
Hundreds of local residents turned out for a hot community meeting last month about the proposal, mostly crying foul over potential traffic increases. The eagles were mentioned briefly at the end of the meeting.
Since the “Save The Eagles” petition began in February, it has garnered almost 15,000 signatures.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service says that developers have to be at a minimum of 600 feet away from eagle nests. Right now, Piper and Glen are about 900 feet away, McIntire said.
In a March report by WFAE about the eagles and the rezoning petition, Carolina Raptor Center CEO Erin Katzner said it’s hard to say whether the Rea Road development proposal would pose a problem for the eagles, and what would need to be done to prevent it from being a problem.
City Councilmen Ed Driggs, who lives in Piper Glen and represents much of south Charlotte, told The Ledger that the city will follow federal regulations to protect the eagles.
“Some people have made [the eagles] the centerpiece of their protest,” Driggs said, “and I don't think federal regulations protecting eagles are triggered by development at this remote location. … The city will certainly respect the habitat of the eagles and will do everything that is required to protect them by regulations. I don’t think that they will be disturbed that much.”
Russell Ranson of RK Investments told The Ledger that he believes the development will not harm the eagles.
“I think the opposition is against all growth in Charlotte, not so much our project,” Ranson said. “It’s just a desire for Charlotte to stop accommodating newcomers.”
To be sure, the eagles aren’t the only concerns residents have about the proposed development.
“We come back to the four things,” McIntire said. “The eagles, the trees, the wildlife — and that includes water quality and air quality — and then the traffic.”
Ranson said RK Investments is pursuing the Rea Road site because it’s walkable to a neighborhood shopping center, and Charlotte should focus development near areas where people have amenities within walking distance.
“[Mecklenburg County] has over 200,000 people on the way in the next 10 years by all estimates,” Ranson said. “We have no more land. Infrastructure surrounding this site is so much better than the rest of Charlotte. It’s well-suited to receive more newcomers — much more well-suited than other sites in Charlotte.”
He touted road improvements he says will help with extra cars that will come as a result of the development: turn lanes at Elm Lane and Rea Road along Highway 51 to improve traffic congestion as well as a pedestrian crosswalk at Bevington.
“I think we have done a remarkable thing by reducing our plan [for 1,100 units] by 42%, so I’m not sure what further we could do beyond the traffic improvements and trails we’re promising,” Ranson said. “Everything that we have done has been in the interests of Charlotte.”
What’s next: Ranson said RK Investments doesn’t plan on making any changes to its site plan following the fiery community meeting last month.
City staff will continue to review the petition and make a recommendation, and there will be a public hearing before an eventual City Council vote.
Driggs said that it is unlikely that a decision will be made by the end of this year — which means for Piper and Glen, their fate must hang in the air a little longer.
.png)
.png)
