Jump to content

Plaza-Midwood Projects (Central, Commonwealth, The Plaza)


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Steel going vertical around the post office Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just looking at the aerials and realizing how much  opportunity  for a truly dense "neighborhood/downtown/entertainment" district their is being wasted. I know we still need parking because transit he

Mural on the side of The Nook apartments finally going in (Mat Moore)  

Posted Images

That's a very interesting argument against cul-de-sacs. I'm assuming there's one proposed development in particular that has triggered this concern? The website doesn't seem otherwise concerned about the other reasons cul-de-sacs are terrible.

(the errant space in sac s is making me crazy)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 21, 2016 at 9:24 AM, archiham04 said:

^maybe they are waiting for someone to donate a mural.

One of the big estates in the Charlotte City Club Area is subdividing its land for house plots on a cul-de-sac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the big estates in the Charlotte City Club Area is subdividing its land for house plots on a cul-de-sac.

The development adjacent to Midwood Park on Mecklenburg built about 2 years back that put 7 or 8 houses on a lot that had one house on it, I think Grandfather homes developed it, also used a cul de sac, and it's TERRIBLE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there as specific example where this is a problem in PM? Charlotte already doesn't allow cul-de-sacs in most situations. It's actually one of the few redeeming qualities about Charlotte's subdivision regs. There are exceptions in certain situations (ie: topography, or inability to extend the street network due to existing single family homes).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of Mecklenburg Ave is zone R-3 but the lots are above 2/3 acres.  Developers are looking to buy and subdivide and we are getting this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2311948,-80.8032759,132m/data=!3m1!1e3

There is a lot under contract right now looking to do similar that has caused the raucous.  The ordinance has a loophole in the word "feasible" that developers are driving their cul de sac bulldozer through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the no culs-de-sac movement (thanks sakami) is a response to one completed development and one rumored.

The completed one is Park at Mattie Rose, the flowery euphemism that Grandfather Homes attached to their cul-de-sac development on Mecklenburg Ave that turned one home into seven homes on a new "street."

Before

After

The future is more egregious - the redevelopment of the Barnhardt-Cramer estate. The rumor on Facebook (which was posted a few pages back) was of a site plan with a single entrance off of Country Club Lane that led to ~35 houses on multiple culs-de-sac, with their backyards facing Country Club and the already-somewhat-disconnected Fort Street. I am not sure if that development is still planned.

I understand the developer's thought process - why build 20 homes on new city blocks when I can legally build twice as many? But it's a jackbag move nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, archiham04 said:

Most of Mecklenburg Ave is zone R-3 but the lots are above 2/3 acres.  Developers are looking to buy and subdivide and we are getting this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2311948,-80.8032759,132m/data=!3m1!1e3

There is a lot under contract right now looking to do similar that has caused the raucous.  The ordinance has a loophole in the word "feasible" that developers are driving their cul de sac bulldozer through.

 

7 hours ago, morecowbell said:

I think the no culs-de-sac movement (thanks sakami) is a response to one completed development and one rumored.

The completed one is Park at Mattie Rose, the flowery euphemism that Grandfather Homes attached to their cul-de-sac development on Mecklenburg Ave that turned one home into seven homes on a new "street."

Before

After

The future is more egregious - the redevelopment of the Barnhardt-Cramer estate. The rumor on Facebook (which was posted a few pages back) was of a site plan with a single entrance off of Country Club Lane that led to ~35 houses on multiple culs-de-sac, with their backyards facing Country Club and the already-somewhat-disconnected Fort Street. I am not sure if that development is still planned.

I understand the developer's thought process - why build 20 homes on new city blocks when I can legally build twice as many? But it's a jackbag move nonetheless.

I'm 100% with you in concept. I think your goal of removing the concept of cul de sacs is a good one, but I don't know that it would solve your problem, at least not in the context of that property on Meckenburg Ave. What do you see as an alternative for that site that would allow more dense development and fit the neighborhoods vision?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2016 at 11:14 AM, Niner National said:

Can we move the 10th/Seigle land sale discussion over to the Belmont thread? I want to discuss it, but I don't want to derail this thread.

Personally I think town homes are ideal for PM but I know many people don't want that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Personally I think town homes are ideal for PM but I know many people don't want that.

Actually, PM is a little bit different from most neighborhoods when it comes to density I think...

One solution, on the table actually, is to require a large front facing townhome on Mecklenburg to provide additional setback, proper orientation, and massing to hide the homes behind.  This was discussed with the developer for the planned 2 acre property that has sparked the current fervor.

Another model development that was mentioned as aesthetically in-keeping with the streetscape, but still included 6 units was this one on Queens Rd.  Neighbors were quick to point out that PM probably couldn't pull the price points that this property did, but perhaps the massing was a model for the future.

The potential for future properties to fall down this hole is very high.  there are at least nine more properties on Mecklenburg that could be subdivided under the current zoning, half could potentially include culs de sac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2016 at 11:53 AM, tozmervo said:

That's a very interesting argument against cul-de-sacs. I'm assuming there's one proposed development in particular that has triggered this concern? The website doesn't seem otherwise concerned about the other reasons cul-de-sacs are terrible.

(the errant space in sac s is making me crazy)

The original signs all had an apostrophe between the C and S... if you thought the space was making you crazy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2245 Meck developer met with neighbors at last week's land use meeting. Here's a comprehensive update as posted on NextDoor: 

Sorry for the delay in posting this.... There is a lot of news this weekend about our petition -- so look for further posts. Here are some notes on the Land Use Meeting when the Developers of 2245 Mecklenburg attended. 

I've attached a picture of the plans that they had on display. 

Developer Info: 
-The developer is Red Cedar 
-They focus in Charlotte and Atlanta 
-Their website is www.redcedarco.com 
-Local projects include: 1114 Woodside, 3400 Oakwood, and 2729 Clemson 

Project Information: 
-Called Cedar Village 
-Not fully designed the houses yet 
-Front doors will face the cul-de-sac 
-Houses are orthogonally oriented (meaning that they face the street whenever possible). 
-3,000 sq ft average - prices will be in the upper 700s 
-8,000 sq ft lots (like Truman 50 x 150') to 10,000 sq ft (includes green space) 
-Each house will have an auto court that most likely will be gated (individual gates instead of gated community) 
-They will work the grade by adding some cutting on the left and the back houses will be 1.5 stories (the basement will act as a retaining wall) 
-Will have a 6-home home association (that will be responsible for the "tree save" area) 
-Providing a 40' "tree save" buffer instead of a 35' (required with the creek) 
-The project is not closed yet but they want to start development in the summer and build in the winter 
-Want to have a dog fountain or bench in front of the subdivision for public interaction. 
-Developer indicated that attention would be paid to managing run-off and explained various strategies which exceeded City Requirements. These included dry creek bed and pervious pavement or similar. 
-Developer indicated that emergency numbers for stormwater event could be provided during construction phase activity. 

Feedback: 
-People were most concerned about the subdivision's cul-de-sac and the set back from Mecklenburg. 
-Developer asked what an acceptable setback might be. Neighbors indicated desired setback would be equal to adjacent properties, but that if designed properly, a 60 foot setback (from right of way) could be acceptable. 
-Neighbors expressed that large subdivision entry monuments were not in keeping with the historic neighborhood character. 
-Neighbors indicated a desire to have a lower impact access road installed in lieu of full street cul de sac and intersection. 
-Neighbors said, "Mecklenburg is our Queen's Road." The street is wider, the houses are set back and bigger, and many people walk along it. 
-Suggestion #1 (from a neighbor): Build 3 nicer houses instead of 6. The developer said, "I am not the guy to build $1 million homes. That's not what I want to do." 
-Suggestion #2: Rezone the property for a multifamily structure so that they could have more than one family in the first building and reduce the overall number of buildings. The developer didn't like that due to the timeframe that it takes for rezoning. 
-Suggestion #3: Build a duplex in front onto a private drive and then fewer structures. The developer was willing to research it but wouldn't offer any opinion about it. He was concerned that it takes 16,000 sq ft for a duplex.

cul 2.PNG

cul 1.PNG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the opposition to the cul-de-sac in that case. Its inconsistent to me that residents would rather have multi-family than six houses. Is the concern more aesthetic or is it traffic-related?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the concern is mostly aesthetic, but there are definite traffic concerns, and it feels like this development is a tipping point after the Mattie Rose development by the park and myriad apartments and stress over having to navigate the Harris Teeter parking lot. ;) Perhaps the cul-de-sac fight made for an easier rallying cry than "responsible development in Midwood, please, as our infrastructure and tiny Teeter can't support much more." And I think the hope was the city council would step in or ruckus would discourage the developer (there was a secondary offer on the house for a single owner who planned to move in as-is and keep the lot / home intact). 

It's provided interesting fodder for our PM facebook page (not that it needed it). I posted this awhile ago when the "why all the hate for culs-de-sac? We live on one in PM" or "we were raised in one" came up, adding that PM wasn't welcoming to new neighbors. 

Culs-de-sac are indeed discouraged by the city because the city feels they squelch connectivity. It’s clear that some people like them and others don’t based on our personal experience and some very neighborly cul-de-sacs already in the 'hood. My gut is this movement is about more than just culs-de-sac.

I can only speak for myself - my concern about the development isn’t rooted in a fear of change or newcomers. My mom and dad built the third house in Country Club Parc in 1997 (near a cul-de-sac, natch!) and I remember how it made them feel to be judged by PM folks who told them their home “ruined the neighborhood.” That brand-new (awesome) home was what brought me to Midwood 16 years ago, and it taught me a valuable lesson that new homes in Midwood are and can be a good thing.

My worry about the development is rooted in how it affects traffic, city/county systems (etc). We don’t yet know what taking that one home off of Mecklenburg and replacing it with asphalt and six over 3,000 SF rooftops will do to the groundwater / runoff, the surrounding natural environment, etc. I remember the issue that the new development at Mattie Rose caused in Midwood Park (flooding). Was the flooding the fault of the new residents? Of course not. Am I happy to have new neighbors? Absolutely. Do I wish we could have prevented the environmental issues before they occurred? Yep. 

I think you can be concerned about new development and also be welcoming to new neighbors at the same time. For me, it's more about ensuring that we're measured and deliberate about how the neighborhood develops and the effect on our environment and infrastructure.

Either way, I'm hoping to make more land use meetings to keep on top of what's happening. And thanks for bearing with my lengthy posts. It's much safer to discuss this here thank on Facebook or NextDoor!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Crown said:

agreed. 

 

apartments.png

That is what happens when a contractor and developer looks at their "conditional" rezoning and says to hell with it we'll do it our way:

"Primary Veneer Materials: Stucco and Fiber cement".... ooooorr maybe we can get by with just fiber cement.

Edited by archiham04
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rent is pretty cheap and reasonable for the location. $915+ for a one bedroom one bath with 780 square feet. The price reflects the quality of construction. 

One305 Central on the other hand is running $1,300+ for a one bedroom one bath. A 720 sq. foot flat at the Villages at Commonwealth is running $1,220+.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.