We’ve been hearing an awful lot about "By Right" development in fact that phrase has been batted around like a pickle ball for months.
The statements by the developer that "400 dwelling units can be currently developed by right" and Councilmember Driggs, "a possible by-right development that could include only half as many trees and minimal traffic improvements" are indeed concerning. (See Mr. Driggs full statement below)
But what is the real story? What exactly does “By Right” allow:
Density: Had the Rea Road Gillespie Property been developed years ago under the current R-3 zoning with 53 acres we would have something around 50 homes of comparable size, layout and in a similar style to nearby neighborhoods.
By the numbers under R-3, 53 acres might have yielded as many as 159 homes. Now under N1-A (The new less restrictive zoning) the developer could make them all triplexes. Translation 159 x 3 and the developer could build as many as 477 units.
However, the FEMA Floodplain, Four Mile Creek, Topography, a Required minimal tree save, Required open spaces, Curb and Gutters, plus CFD requirements for vehicle movement. Once all of this is accounted for, the actual number is closer to 400 units and perhaps “By Right” even a lower density. Which would align more closely with the density of the neighboring properties.
Rentals: N1-A prohibits multi-family rental apartments. “By Right” the developer cannot build rental apartments.
Building Height: “By Right” under N1-A the developer is limited to 48’ and cannot build the 65’ tall apartment buildings being requested.
Traffic Improvements: Even if the property is never developed, the traffic is still going to be bad. The improvements outlined by the developer do not alone fix current traffic issues, nor will they even come close to offsetting the additional demand that 640 units will cause.
Some of the offered traffic “improvements” are nonsensical and some will even make traffic worse. Those outlined on the property for ingress and egress are nominal.
“By Right” many of the offered traffic improvements are still required.
Tree Save: The developer has offered a "possible 30% tree save" which would include only the trees in the FEMA Floodplain and a very narrow 50" buffer along the southern edge of the property.
As "By Right" the development would require only a minimum 15% tree save but since the FEMA Floodplain would still be unbuildable it is likely the entire FEMA area would remain undisturbed.
As proposed the only areas spared are the FEMA Floodplain and the 50" buffer. We lose all the trees along Rea Road and Elm Lane either way.
It is of course entirely possible the developer would destroy all but 15% of the trees in the FEMA Floodplain out of spite or anger.
The bottom line is that “By Right” 400 homes that are not rental apartments, nor taller than 48' with considerably less traffic, and the FEMA area tree save, is far better than a rezoning that allows 640 mostly rental apartments in 65' tall buildings and with even considerably more traffic and the same or just about the same tree save.
Please take a moment today and email Charlotte City Councilmember Ed Driggs Ed.Driggs@charlottenc.gov and tell him:
“Developing the Rea Road Gillespie Property "by-right" with no concessions is the better option than allowing the rezoning to go forward for the residents of our community and our Eagles Piper and Glen.”
Ed Driggs: "As I have noted previously, the final decision about this petition may come down to a difficult choice between whatever final proposal may be offered by RK Investments and a possible by-right development that could include only half as many trees and minimal traffic improvements. I am somewhat concerned about the latter possibility, but I will not support the petition if residents consider the options carefully and remain united in opposition."
24 comments:
Why hasn't Ed Driggs pointed this out?
Asking for a friend.
I don't think Ed Driggs really knows.
I thought Ed Driggs told everyone at a community meeting we can't restrict rentals? Can someone please explain?
They can rent out single family homes even duplexes or triplexes but they can't build rental apartments by right.
Chip- I was looking forward to the buses showing up to kill this, but after thinking about the alternative, I seriously think we need to re-think this. "By Right" could be really, really bad.
3:01 I was worried about the same. But if City Council votes this down I doubt they can get 400 units out of the property. Even if they did it would be better than 500 apartments.
By Right they can't build an apartment complex that is 65 feet tall. So worse case we 133 triplexes looking something like Ivy Hall on Elm Lane or Keswick on Bevington and the best part they are not rental apartment building.
Worst part we don't get to wear the green tshirts.
2:28 by right is a bluff. But even if someone not RK Investors because it is not in their tool kit but someone else built it we'd be better off from a traffic standpoint.
The tree save is just bs - we still get the 30% tree save because they can't built in he FEMA floodplain which (surprise) equals 30%. Now if they offered the 30% plus a 50 foot tree collar around the entire property not just the southern border that would be worth talking about.
50 acres, 3 units per acre = 150 lots. You can do a triplex on any lot now (there was an article about this earlier in the week), so that is 450 triplex, right?
I saw their proposed plan and it had a huge wall of trees on Rea buffering the buildings. Is that the southern border? Triplex would have only trees in the flood plane so you would see all of it and it could all be rental.
I spoke to Ed and they have shown a by right plan with no trees, no pond, no road improvements that the City said can be done without a rezoning. I do not want to see that. A 60 foot tall building behind 80 foot tall trees preserved sounds a lot better.
I want to wear the shirts, but I do not want to look at triplexes as I ride down Rea Road. I liked their plan to keep the trees on Rea and the walking trail they showed. Is the park idea out? If so, what are we going to lose if they do the plan the City cannot stop?
The developer is still required to provide sidewalks so that's not really an incentive. Who wants to wander through an apartment complex to shop at Trader Hoe's?
Ed Driggs would lie to his own mother.
4:31 I'm looking on line and I don't see any tree save on Rea Road or Elm Lane. Help me would here.
The developer said at the last meeting they would save 30% trees which is about 15 acres including along Rea Road and the southern border. Why does anyone want to give up way more trees, lose the greenway connection and wait longer for traffic at highway 51? I like the flexibility to rent in the area if I sell my home.
The developer will not save any trees on Rea Road or Elm Lane. Only the 50 foot buffer on the southern side and the FEMA Flood Zone along Four Mile Creek.
With rents of 1,750 to 8,500 I'm glad you have the sort of money. Me I'd head to Sun City and pay 1/2 amount in a gated community.
I think this lot could be turned into a state park or wildlife refuge or city park if it was named after the right person. If someone proposed the Moore - Berger Wildlife refuge and got the legislature to support it it would take the decision out of the city’s hands.
It is likely that a 400 unit townhome complex could trigger a traffic study on such a highly trafficked area like Rea Road. It may come with some required road improvements as well. There will certainly be tree save and storm water requirements. You can't assume it will be built willy-nilly just because it is "by-right"
If this is true why hasn't Fred Driggs told anyone? He's our city council member he should know these things.
Did anyone notice the amount of garbage the has washed up around Pike Nursery? Is that from the flood? Why are south Charlotte residents such pigs?
Why do you hate poor people? Don’t they deserve to live in a nice neighborhood too?
I don't think this is about Poor People or Hating anyone.
What about the senior living was that just a ploy?
The entire project is a joke all the facts are shrouded in ifs and maybe and I don't know.
What a freaking joke and Ed Driggs is so far up these guys asses that even his dog won't sit near him the stench in so bad.
I love this idea!!
Post a Comment