Subscribe to RSS/Google Reader
Subscribe to RSS/MyYahoo
4 scenarios offered for Pine Rd. parcel
Day 2 of a planning workshop for a 17-acre parcel off Pine Road wrapped-up Thursday with a presentation of four preliminary development scenarios. The scenarios, which are only the first stab at a site plan, range from a development of 19 $1 million-plus homes on half-acre lots to 38 slightly less expensive homes on much smaller lots.
Representatives from The Lawrence Group and developer Killian Simonini LLC sketched the rough site plans following input from citizens and town officials during the workshop at Town Hall. Thursday’s session followed an introductory meeting Wednesday night, where developer Ray Killian Jr. unveiled his plans to build luxury houses on property owned by Davidson resident Lawrence Kimbrough and family. (Read our report of the Wednesday session.)
All the plans offered Thursday night followed a similar basic design. All suggest road connections at the end of Pine Road and at a 60-foot-wide sliver of property between two homes about 900 feet north of the end of the road. The road sections would connect near the center of the property to a circular roadway around a park or green space.
Craig Lewis of The Lawrence Group said efforts would be made to save as many trees as possible on the heavily wooded property. All significant trees have already been marked, he said. But he warned neighborhood residents in attendance that they should expect many of the trees to disappear during construction.
He said the developer will have to compensate for lost trees with some replanting, however.
TRAFFIC WORRIES
Meanwhile, the two-day workshop included frequent discussions about the possible effects of added traffic on Pine Road and at the Pine Road/Concord Road intersection.
Mr. Lewis acknowledged that Pine Road may need additional traffic calming measures. But, he said, “The issues that are out there will continue to be out there regardless of whether this property is developed.”
He said the developer would conduct a traffic study, which is required for all developments over 20 houses, and would make recommendations for possible new traffic measures. He said the town and residents will have to continue pushing for a traffic circle or stoplight at Concord Road, which is controlled by the state of North Carolina.
“I don’t think this is going to make (traffic) significantly worse,” Mr. Lewis said.
Mr. Lewis said the town may want to consider traffic calming devices - such as speed tables, trees or partial barriers — on Pine Road, which is a lightly traveled straightaway.
Lawrence Kimbrough, whose family owns the property, noted that the town controls Pine Road, and “that gives you a little flexibility on what you can do with the road.”
QUESTIONS ABOUT SIZE
Part of the discussion Thursday night also focused on lot and home sizes. Existing residences on Pine Road are mid-sized homes of 2,200 to 3,000 square feet, on half-acre lots. Bob Maydole, a Pine Road resident, asked why the developer wouldn’t consider similarly sized houses on similarly sized lots.
“It’s about the economics, isn’t it?” he said.
Mr. Killian acknowledged that a smaller home on a larger lot results in “a disproportionate cost” for the land. He also said that given the cost of the land, “to a large extent we’re driven by the appraisal market.”
If the houses are small in comparison to the selling price, “the cost per square foot starts to get to a level that is not proven yet in the market,” Mr. Killian said.
Nonetheless, he and Mr. Lewis said their preference would be for smaller lots, not for large houses on larger lots. The latter would mean custom homes, possibly costing $1 million or more. Said Mr. Lewis: “We, as a preference, are trying to avoid getting into purely custom home lots. … There are a lot of home lots in Davidson of a half-acre. We would like to differentiate this from them.”
“Our preference is a combination of 60- to 80-foot (wide) lots,” he said.
FOUR SCENARIOS
The scenarios he presented Thursday with lots those sizes make it likely the development will have 37 or 38 homes. The four ideas were:
A - 37 homes, including 19on 60-foot wide lots and 18 on 80-foot lots. This would include a median on part of the road through the development, a landscaped green area, and rain gardens for drainage. Mr. Lewis described this as “naturalistic landscaping.”
B. 38 homes. 20 wold be on 60-foot lots and 18 on 80-foot lots. This would be “more formally landscaped,” Mr. Lewis said, similar to Simonini’s other developments in Charlotte, such as Heydon Hall. This would include a “pocket park” along one section, which is sort of an “extension of front yards” of some of the homes.
C. 30 homes, including 16 on 60-foot lots and 14 on 80-foot-plus lots.
D. 19 homes, all on 100-foot lots. This would involve primarily custom homes over $1 million, he said.
The developers will work on more detailed site plan drawings and hold another planning workshop in the coming weeks. A final site plan would need to be reviewed by the planning board and the Town Board later.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE
May 16, 2007, “Luxury homes planned off Pine Road,” (report from Day 1 of the planning workshop)
Filed under: Planning & Development
This development is an opportunity to reopen the discussion about a connection between Avinger Lane and South Street. As it stands, everything that is built on Pine Road, including Avinger Lane and the Pines, uses Pine & Concord Roads as its entrance and exit. Patrick Johnson Lane does offer a second point of access, but the destination is the same: Concord Rd. A connection to South Street and the Cornelius Transit Oriented Development under construction near Davidson Elementary School would allow traffic to move west and south from Pine Road to Cornelius, Huntersville and I-77 without ever touching Concord Road, Main Street or Griffith Street. We need this connection. Ideally, we should build it BEFORE another 35 or 40 homes are added to the “Pine Road cul-de-sac.”
I commend the publisher of Davidson News&Notes for an early report on this government-for-the-few , by-the-few story. For it has the makings of a major local political scandal. At this point in time, I offer these preliminary observations for discussion:
1. There are conflict-of-interest aspects, one of which is due to a 1st Charter Bank business relationship between mayor pro tem John Woods and Lawrence Kimbrough.
2. There is no public interest obligation on the part of the Town Board to help Kimbrough et.al. to maximize their profits on the seventeen acres. The community’s interest in the impact or “footprint” of the development must be weighed over against the private interests at play.
Nor is there any societal imperative to make sure that the Lawrence Kimbrough home nearby–in a 6,000-square-foot house on a cul-de-sac–has good neighbor homes for “active adults” and “empty nesters” (some nest, some empty!).
3. Town planner Lauren Blackburn would do well to keep in mind that she is a public servant and NOT an agent for a private interest. All too often the official town planners become surrogates/advocates for the private developers whose projects they are shepherding through the approval process. It is a chummy relationship that frequently undermines the ethics of good government–similar to military officers overseeing defense contractors producing weapons for their services.
4. It would seem obvious that the Kimbroughs and developer Ray Killian/Simonini are pressing to get the master plan for their luxury million-dollar-ballpark mansion scheme past the current Town Board incumbents before some, or all, of them leave office in 2007.
5. And then there is this most inconvenient revelation: The 17.125-acre parcel would be exempt from Town affordable housing requirements. Blackburn explains:
“Normally that would be a requirement, but an agreement has existed between the owner and the town for a number of years that would exempt him from the requirement.”
6. “Craig Lewis of The Lawrence Group said efforts would be made to save as many trees as possible on the heavily wooded property.” Where have we heard this before?
William E. Jackson, Jr.
If the residents of Davidson are upset about this project, there are ways to have an influence in addition to going through the political and planning processes. If the exemption to the affordable housing requirement was not done correctly, then it and this entire development should be challenged in court. There are also ways to challenge this development in the market. I don’t begrudge someone for having a 6,000 square foot house, but I certainly don’t like them thinking that they should not have to live next to a police officer, construction worker, or school teacher. The spirit of Davidson is that rich and poor should live together, and while that objective is difficult to achieve, we should not tolerate what appears to be a waiver of this objective for the benefit of a very wealthy individual.
Regarding Shelly’s comment about the Avinger Ln. South St. connection. I thought that was a done deal. This is why the “Greenway” that now connects them was constructed with such a wide footprint. From what I understand, the beautiful, popular greenway will become just a wide sidewalk to this connecting road. So did the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to build this greenway section, actually just prepare a road bed? I’m confused about this aspect of connectivity.
The new Pines construction runs nearly up to the Greenway already. Squeezing in a road there means the end of the greenway. Unless the Avinger Ln. extension runs through the parking lot of the new Pines and skirts closer to the Elementary school property, and manages to leave a few hundred yards between the greenway path and the road, not just 10-20 yards.
It would be nice to see on a map how that connector road would connect to South St.
Bob, I am on the greenway advisory board and will investigate this issue about the road, but I also wanted to add a bit of informatio nand pose a qeustion. First, the info: construction on the Avinger lane segment of the overland greenway connector will be done in the coming fiscal year, providing cyclists, walkers, and runners, as well as school kids, a much safer way of going from Pine Road and parts East to Davidson Elementary, which I think is a good use of taxpayer money.
Second, have you been on the rest of the Greenway? The osuth street to Avinger connector is part, but not nearly all, of the greenway, which now runs from the base of Patrcik Johnson to Davidson Concord Road and will soon connect over to River Run. This will be part of a much larger county greenway system and a truly important asset for the community and beyond.
I’ve been on the entire greenway dozens of times. Living on Walnut St. I have easy access to it. It is a terrific practical ammenity. My only issue with it is how close it runs to roads– mainly Concord Rd. The volumes of traffic can create enough air pollution that a 30 minute walk is like sitting in a smoking permitted restaurant.
The ideal greenway is just that; a route that goes through green space, away from car noise and exhaust. I know Davidson stretches that definition, for good and not so good reasons. But when people fight greenways through their property, “greenways” are forced to hug road right-of-ways. Sad but true– it’s the world we live in. Hopefully in the new developments, the Town will require real greenways, not just road-hugging wider sidewalks.
I’d like to put my earlier note from another page ( which is relevant here; http://davidsonnews.net/2007/05/16/luxury-homes-planned-off-pine-road/#comment-1317 ) in here again, especially to connect to Rodney Graham’s good note above.
So, citing myself:
—————-
May 17th, 2007 at 7:30 am
I am curious about the “exemption” to the town’s affordable housing requirement for developments. I think Ms. Blackburn or Mr. Kimbrough or the mayor Mr. Kincaid should elaborate on that point.
Why?
1. No disclosure of the exemption looks bad, smells bad, hints necessarily are something corrupt and underhanded, whether that be the case or not. People will think: “not fair!” even if the “exemption” is something fair and legal.
2. Citizens will wonder necessarily if there is something that Mr. Kimbrough and the developer are putting on the table for the citizens of the Town of Davidson in exchange for the exemption from affordable housing. Possibilities could include green space, land donation to the town, public park, greenway, higher tax rates for these homes (a kind of “affordable housing surcharge”), building affordable housing elsewhere in town, or something else creative, just, and in keeping with the stated goals of the town’s planning documents.
3. Government should be transparent. What might be called “the Kimbrough exemption agreement” should be a matter of the public record and needs to be published and explained by the town board and the town planning department.
Scott Denham, Davidson
————
I’m still confused about this exemption. Anyone know about this? Randy Kincaid? John Woods? –Any info on this?
SD
I think to find out you just need to ask the Board, preferably at a Board meeting. It is a public matter and they should make all records relating to it available to the public. My take is that to give someone an exemption from a zoning ordinace can only be done via rezoning the property, which requires a public hearing, or via a variance, which requires a meeting of the Board of Adjustments, which to my knowledge has not met for several years, if ever. I don’t know if the Town’s charter gives it the ability to offer exemptions to zoning requirements except through the mechanisms above. I could be wrong. The next board meeting is the 2nd Tuesday in June.
I’ve been continuing to pursue the question about the affordable housing exemption since last week’s meeting. I’m still waiting for specifics from town staff, but here’s what I’ve been able to learn:
The Town Board approved the exemption with Mr. Kimbrough on Dec. 14, 2004. Unfortunately, it’s not mentioned specifically in the minutes of the meeting. You’d have to be a super-sleuth to know what it means. Here’s what the Dec. 14, 2004 minutes say:
Town Attorney Richard Kline reviewed an Agreement with Stough Farms Family Limited Partnership for swapping property. After a brief discussion, Commissioner John Woods moved to approve the attached Agreement. The motion carried unanimously.
Stough Farms Family Limited Partnership is controlled by Mr. Kimbrough and his family. I am told that the land swap made it possible for the town to build the greenway. Without the deal, there would likely be no greenway.
So far, no town board member has been willing to talk about it publicly. We’re hoping to get a more detailed response from the town staff soon — and possbily a copy of the agreement referenced in the 2004 minutes. I’ll let you know …
Good sleuthing, David. Many thanks.
In January 2005 Stough Family Farms gave the Town of Davidson a 1.043 acre section of the Cabin Woods common area. This property from my perspective is essentially worthless, as it has a very irregular shape and is maybe 20 feet wide at the most. It is not located near the greenway. I don’t know if this is the property that Stough (Kimbrough) gave up in order to get the affordable housing exemption, but if it is I am curious how it ties in with the greenway or how it has any value to the Town of Davidson. It seems unusual that a developer would deed over common area to the Town, and it seems unusual that the Town would accept a piece of property that at least to me has no apparent use given its location and shape.
With regards to the comments regarding the location of the greenway, and specifically Shireen Campbell’s comments, it would be interesting to know why the existing greenway does not follow the path shown on Mecklenburg County’s greenway maps. On the maps, the greenway is shown going from the South Street area directly over to the base of Patrick Johnston Road in the new Davidson Woods development. This route basically parallels the stream. It is more direct, is in FEMA floodplain, and would be going through a natural area as opposed to going “overland” on Avinger and Pine Road. I am curious to know why the greenway was not built as mapped. If property owners fight it, doesn’t the county have the power of eminent domain?
I have researched a bit further the parcel of land that Mr. Kimbrough gave to the Town of Davidson in January of 2005. Presumably, this was his half of the land swap that allowed his 17 acre Pine Road parcel to be exempted from the affordable housing requirement. The 1 acre parcel that Mr. Kimbrough gave to the town basically enables a future connection to the greenway from the end of Pat Stough Lane in the Cabin Creek subdivision. I think it is a stretch to say that the greenway could not have been built without this parcel. It might be fair to say that the residents of Cabin Creek (a subdivision of $600,000 + homes developed by Mr. Kimbrough) would not have a direct path over to the greenway without the land swap.
Having said the above, it is entirely possible that there are - or will be - additional properties donated to the Town by Mr. Kimbrough. I have not been able to find any other transactions between Mr. Kimbrough or his companies and the Town of Davidson.
I am hopeful that the Town government will soon be forthcoming with additional information showing how this entire transaction was beneficial to all residents of Davidson. I think by and large they have done a good job looking out for everyone’s interests and I hope this instance is not an exception.