Subscribe to RSS/Google Reader
Subscribe to RSS/MyYahoo
Board OKs 6-story condos near Exit 30
The Davidson Town Board Tuesday
night approved a conditional rezoning request for the Pinnacle at Davidson Gateway project near I-77 Exit 30, which includes a six-story, 78-foot residential condominium tower (illustration) and four other buildings.
The vote was 4-1, with commissioners John Woods, Cary Johnston, Evan Webster and Margo Williams in favor. Only Commissioner Bruce McMillen voted against the rezoning, arguing that “the mass and scale of the (condo) building is not appropriate for this site. This is the entryway to Davidson.”
Mr. McMillen also suggested that in approving the project, the town would be backtracking on its goal of increasing commercial development. While other commercial buildings of similar height have been approved nearby, he said, “We’ve gotten something in return – commercial tax base…”
“We don’t need more residential space in this town,” Mr. McMillen said. “I view this as giving up potential commercial property tax base in order to allow a residential building that is too large for the site.”
Chris and Ron Kennerly of Davidson Development have proposed a mixed-use project on the 4.37-acre site, which is off Peninsula Drive in the Southeast Quadrant, near Exit 30 off I-77. It includes a 60-unit, six-story residential condominium as well as two 3 1?2 story office buildings and eight affordable housing units in two buildings.
The Davidson Planning Board approved the request in a 7-4 vote on March 26.
Town board member John Woods was the most vocal proponent of the project Tuesday night. “I believe we have a unique opportunity on this site, because of the peculiarity of the site, to create a higher density, realizing that there are other places in town where we would probably choose not to create such a high density,” Mr. Woods said.
EXCEPTIONS GRANTED
Both the condominium building and the office buildings required rezoning because they exceed the 45-foot height limit in the Lakeshore Planning Area. The condo tower would be 78 feet, not including rooftop structures that might be added, such as spires or cupolas. The two office buildings would be 52 feet, also exceeding the limit.
The board approved the Kennerlys request for seven exceptions from Davidson’s planning ordinance. Besides the two height issues, others included:
– That improvements along the shoreline of the peninsula, including a proposed boardwalk and bridge, be counted as satisfying the town’s adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO), which requires developers to provide or contribute toward community parks.
– That affordable housing units be allowed to front on a sidewalk and parking lot, instead of a public street, as required in the ordinance.
– That the development be exempted from street connectivity and maximum length of a cul-de-sac, because of its location on the peninsula.
– That the extension of Peninsula Drive be approved, even though it does not include required planting strips in some areas.
– That the western portion of Peninsula Drive be approved even though it encroaches on a 30-foot lakefront buffer.
One change in the plan Tuesday came when Commissioner Margo Williams and planning director Kris Krider suggested deleting references in the plan to the size of the affordable housing units. Ms. Williams said the units as proposed are too small for the number of occupants the developer envisions for them. The board agreed that the units’ size could be negotiated later.
NEIGHBORS’ CONCERNS
The board approved the development after a lengthy explanation of the conditions and after reading a letter to town officials from Thomas Hosea, homeowners association president of the nearby Boardwalk development. Mr. Hosea wrote that residents there are concerned about flooding between their buildings and the proposed development.
Some Boardwalk residents have attended public hearings and meetings on the proposal, and also expressed concerns about traffic and about a planned footbridge from the peninsula’s east side to the opposite shoreline.
The developer has agreed to spend $150,000 for a boardwalk around the peninsula, another $40,000 for overlook areas, seeding and signage along the boardwalk and to contribute at least $60,000 so the town can construct the footbridge.
The project still needs a variety of approvals from town and county officials, and from Duke Power, which controls the lake. The developer said Tuesday night the project would probably be constructed in a single phase, though the condos, office buildings and affordable housing buildings would be separate components.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
The plan, as approved, also included a set of seven requirements suggested by the town planning staff. The Kennerlys agreed, among other things:
– To try to win Duke Power’s permission to install bulkhead, instead of rock, along parts of the shoreline.
– Not to cut any trees within 30 feet of the shoreline without negotiating with the planning staff. The developer also agreed to pay for new tree planting elsewhere in town for any large trees cut down in the center of the site.
– Public art will be included as part of the $40,000 in improvements in the shoreline.
– The developer and adjacent property owners (the Boardwalk homeowners) will investigate and pay for improvements to resolve flooding problems between the two developments.
ALSO TUESDAY
Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the Town Board approved a budget amendment to continue paying legal fees related to the proposed purchase of the local cable TV system, to add money to the Griffith Street project fund and to pay $44,700 for repairs to the cafeteria building at the Ada Jenkins Center, where roof damage recently forced the relocation of the senior meal program.
The board also outlawed bow hunting in Davidson (see related story), and conducted a public hearing on proposed changes in the Village Infill Planning area rules. The rules would tighten the height and size restrictions on new homes and residential renovations in the old part of town.
Filed under: Davidson town board, Planning & Development, Village infill rules changes
I was really suprised that the Town Board in a 4 - 1 vote approved the huge condo development near exit 30. This will become an eyesore with an enormous structure built so close to the interstate. (Think of that beautiful spit of green space and how it could have been used to show off the town at its best.) It also may add to the traffic woes we already experience. I wonder why the four Board members found this project so appealing.
The dismay I feel regarding the numerous changes the Town Board has approved over the past year is beyond polite words. The information received at “town charrettes” in the fall of 2004 regarding the development at Exit 30 is a 180 degree turn from the reality. The roundabouts sounded reasonable at the time; now it is ludicrous. The increase in traffic in this area in coming months, let alone years, is beyond my poor meager mind. Two schools, two hotels, dense residential building and I’m not even in the “know” of what else is planned. Folks, Davidson is no longer a “quaint town” once you leave our lovely Town Green and our increasingly dwindling stores in walking distance of Main street. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, is that all we are? I don’t think so. When are elections coming up and who will come to the forefront to represent citzens who aren’t rich, but want to stay and be heard in Davidson??
The Kennerlys have erected a Website for The Pinnacle (http://www.davidsonpinnacle.com/) and recently got some free marketing from Charlotte Observer writer Doug Smith (July 4, 2007: “Davidson getting edgy: Pinnacle building to offer rooftop pool, uptown type amenities.)
“Free marketing” is the right phrase in that Doug Smith of the Charlotte Observer never met a development, commercial or residential, that he didn’t like. Furthermore, the Observer as a journalistic institution more often is a booster–one whole page on The Pinnacle!–of urban/suburban overgrowth than a critical reporter on the most powerful, essentially unchecked combination of special interests in the Charlotte area, i.e. greedy developers and their allies. The latter include: banks, construction firms, “homebuilders,” real estate firms, insurance companies, road contractors–for openers. The single best example of this runaway power is REBIC (Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition).
Regarding all the development that has occured at the exit 30 interchange it is extremely important to note that the entire build out of the area was approved and granfathered before the water shed act in the early nineties. Unfortunately for the entire North Mecklenburg area many developers scrambled to get development master plans approved and “vested” before the water shed act came into affect. Most of these plans were poorly laid out and adhered to much looser development guidelines that existed in all three North Mecklenburg towns at that time.
A few years later our elected officials initiated a comprehensive effort to plan for the look and feel of undeveloped ares in our town in advance of impending development. I applaud the efforts of our elected officials and town staff for shaping this development in a way that will far surpass the quality of any interchange I know of along the I-77 corridor. They worked tirelessly to revamp approved plans that would have yeilded development very similar to exit 28 in Cornelius. They worked with developers to negotiate a better plan that eliminated parking lots from the front of buildings; drive thru’s, five lane roads and overbearing signage.
I am also thankful that they have been successfull in warding off this development for so long! For the past 12 years these folks have worked very hard to deal with the unfortunate set of development circumstances that have befallen this area. Of all the North Meck towns Davidson continues to enjoy the slowest growth rate (not by a small margin I might add) and the best quality of development.
It is unfortunate that the US continues to trade away our jobs but as a result we are increasingly more dependant on growth (and war) to support our economy. I can’t believe that people still desire to live so far from Charlotte and commute to work, but they do. As long as that continues this area will see growth. It is disingenuous to suggest that recent elected officials had the legal right to have said no to this development. If you still think so then you need to be looking back at the 1992 board for blame. That’s when exit 30’s fate was determined.
[...] from entering the cable TV business. And they’ll get a first look at architectural designs for The Pinnacle, a planned 6-story condo tower off Exit 30. That project, by developers Chris and Ron Kennerly of [...]
I liken the development on exit 30 to a beautiful model with a big wart front and center (no offense meant to any beautiful models with big warts who might be reading this post). On net the development of exit 30 makes sense. To the extent that we have development in Davidson it makes sense to cluster it near the interstate rather than in the Town Center or rural areas. But, the six or seven-story condo building that will become the face of this area appears to be architecturally out of place, what with its size and wall of plate glass windows that change colors with the shifting light (think of the pink glass building in Charlotte). “Edgy” should not be the defining architectural style of Davidson. Dissing the “staid, college-town architecture” as was done in last Sunday’s Observer doesn’t sit well with those of us who like our staid, college town.
In this day of climate change and a commitment to energy efficiency, allowing a wall of plate glass with a western exposure is an example of “smart growth” lacking in common sense. Today’s Town board may or may not be responsible for this development, but they do have a say in the architectural design in Davidson, and on this point they have not yet shown adequate leadership. John Edwards talks about “two Americas.” I fear Davidson is at risk of become three or four Davidsons, each with little in common with the other, or melding into the other local towns and becoming lost in the inexorable march of Charlotte. Consistent design is one way to maintain a sense of community. I would prefer that we retain our uniqueness, and if that means promoting staid college-town architecture over “edgy,” I am all for it.
Rodney Graham’s comments regarding exit 30 are well articulated and certainly reasonable in terms of expressing a viewpoint regarding the design. The issue of approval of architectural design however actually falls into the jurisdiction of the town’s volunteer Design Review Board which has no ties what so ever to the elected officials. This group is composed of residents with seasoned credentials in both the field of design as well as tenured residents of Davidson. Their job is a challenging one when considering that they are “legislating” taste. I would encourage those in town who are unhappy with the decisions made by this board to learn more about that process. Consider attending one or two of the meetings folks will learn the lengths that the board goes thru to review proposed designs. And, look at all the past projects that have been reviewed with great results.
As far as the design aesthetic goes I would however offer for consideration that it is not necessarily a bad thing that the development out at exit 30 represents a departure from the historic precedents that flourish in our town center. One of the key premises in historic preservation (as articulated by the secretary of the interior, for more info see http://www.nps.gov/history/) is that new construction is often encouraged to be a more accurate stylistic representation of the time period in which it is being constructed. Many historians believe that significant historic places (buildings and towns) should be preserved by resisting the urge to “copy” every aspect of what was made historically unique a century ago. This approach coupled with the fact that the development at exit 30 is visually and physically separated from our historic town center actually reinforces the unique significance and authentic historic of the village center.
By and large today’s private development industry is on average much less capable of designing and constructing historically correct traditional architecture. It is even more difficult to legislate good design through an appointed review board. Furthermore, I would hazard to guess that it would be illegal for our elected officials to have any control over this issue. As an architect I have worked on historic buildings in our downtown but am not in support of replicating this style everywhere. The development at exit 30 will be (by and large) architecturally pleasing with a separate identity. I also think that the “green” transition along Griffith Road will help maintain the historic core as a more unique destination. I envision the locations vying for a very different demographic. I don’t see any need for the “unique” identity of Davidson to be flaunted (or worse yet) poorly replicated along the I-77 corridor. Our town center has no historic relationship to this 20th century highway. I also see the tax revenue as an important part of our fiscal responsibility in continuing to fund efforts such as the purchase of open space, green-ways and improvements all over town that facilitate a more pedestrian and self sustaining environment for us all.
As a resident since 1993 I have heard an awful lot of criticism and not enough praise for our staff and elected officials. The same folks who are being criticized for development at exit 30 were responsible for ensuring that our Main street drug store fit in with the character of Davidson. I am not aware of another jurisdiction that has so successfully required a large national chain to design a drug store befitting a historic Main Street. If anyone questions what would have otherwise been done take trip to Mooresville’s Main Street CVS.
To my knowledge the Pinnacle project has not yet satisfied the requirements of, or been approved by, the Design Review Board. Not that there is anything wrong with a smattering of modernism in our life!
I hear so much about mixed use development, blending business and residential, usually with several stories of residences topping a couple stories of practical businesses– like every thriving city in the world. But when the rubber hits the road in Davidson, I see yet another Ballantyne-esque low-rise residential condo that reflects nothing but South Charlotte’s corporate monoculture where business and residence are forever divided. During a recent visit it Arlington, VA, I saw most new developments consisted of high-rise apartments over businesses, which created a thriving community on a large square at ground level. A real neighborhood, served by excellent mass transit as well. It was green, it was practical, it was efficient, it was quiet, it was fun, and cars and traffic were an afterthought– gee, just like Davidson used to be.
I agree with much of Dave’s commentary regarding the application of traditional vs. current architectural styles. I am not suggesting that everything in Davidson be built in a classic style. Heck, even what we consider to be the historic center of town has a mix of styles, many of which are not considered classic.
However, the Pinnacle project is so prominent that it will potentially define Davidson for many people. Charlotte, too, has a historic district, but when most people think of Charlotte’s architecture they think of the uptown skyscrapers or South Park, not Dilworth. My concern with the Pinnacle design is that it will begin the transformation of Davidson from “quaint, historic Town” to an extension of Charlotte. Think Huntersville or Cornelius.
The Design Review Board is responsible for making architectural review decisions, but they are appointed by the Town Board. And, the Town Board has the power to promulgate design standards, something they seem to be reluctant to do. Ultimately I think we need to look to the Town Board to establish what types of architecture will define Davidson.