Merry Oaks Neighborhood Association

Central @ Briar Creek UPDATE 1/9/06

February 20 City Council public hearing

Subject: Central @ Briar Creek UPDATE January 9, 2006
Date: Jan 9, 2006 10:19 PM
Last Thursday, a small group of neighbors met with the developer to view a drawing of what the proposed development might look like it the rezoning passes. At the developers request, it was a very small group in order to keep reactions concise. He is required to hold a community meeting for everyone in the next several weeks so stay tuned. Please put FEBRUARY 20 on your calendar for the public hearing in front of City Council. They will vote in March.


TO: Sonja Sanders, Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Staff
CC: Chris Ogunrinde, Grey Poole, Patsy Kinsey, Eric Beiring, Jerry Wells,
FROM: Deborah Gilbert, Tom Poston, Nancy Pierce Shaver, Beth Walker,
RE: 2005-133 (Central @ Briar Creek)

On Thursday, January 5, four neighbors from Merry Oaks, Briar-Creek/Woodland and Medford Acres met with developer Grey Poole and architect Chris Ogunrinde to look at a drawing for the proposed Central @ Briar Creek development. Our City Council representative, Patsy Kinsey, was also there. Grey and Chris had shown us the revised site plan at a previous meeting on November 22. Two neighbors who had attended the previous meeting, Jerry Wells and Eric Beiring, were unable to attend.
These six neighbors represent many more neighbors who want to be involved. They look forward to the community meeting, which has not yet been scheduled.
At your request we are sending you a synopsis of our reactions to the meeting. Our reactions are in boldface.

We saw a birds-eye view of a brick corner restaurant with an outdoor plaza at the corner, a historical marker and rooftop seating, tree-lined sidewalks along Central Avenue abutting one story brick buildings with glass atriums and awnings, a three-story brick residential building along Briar Creek Road with few details evident, and a grocery store in the rear, again framed by trees and with some cosmetic detail such as a glass entryway. The interior of the site was all parking, with more spaces than code requires. There were no street-level elevations available, but at the previous meeting we were told the residential building would have street-level stoops.
The cosmetic architectural details make for an attractive drawing. But they do not mitigate a design and footprint that underutilize this important urban site. We are opposed to a stand-alone retail box. We need to see a truly urban retail-residential mix. We like the idea of street level stoops for some of the residential, but we also think there should be second story residential above the retail.
The rooftop dining to take advantage of the hilltop and skyline view is a good idea. A historical marker is a crucial feature that we will expect of any development on this site since the existing Plummer house, and the existing Renfrow house across the street, were built by the children of Civil War veteran Silas Wolfe, whose extensive farm surrounded them.
The proposed parking layout would encourage cut-through traffic turning right from Central to Briar Creek. We prefer breaking up the parking lot into many smaller, connected parking pockets, to discourage cut-through and make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. We want to see a protected bike/ped path bisect the parking. We do not think extra parking is necessary or desirable in a streetcar-oriented, mixed-use development which will draw walk- or bike-in customers. The sloping topography should lend itself to some under-building parking.
The retail buildings facing Central Avenue are dressed-up single story boxes. We did not see any street-level drawings to tell us how these retail buildings would present to the pedestrian. For example, pedestrian-level windows are essential but the birds eye-view did not allow us to see the fronts of these buildings since the trees obscured them.

Grey confirmed that if the rezoning succeeds and he purchases the property, Aldi will immediately purchase a portion of the property from him and build its own store. The two retail buildings fronting Central would closely follow. The restaurant and residential building would be phased in later. At the November 22 meeting, Grey indicated that the residential component could be under separate ownership.
We are not comfortable with 2- or 3- way subdivision of the site. We are extremely troubled at the prospect of a third-party owning and managing a portion of the property when that third party only builds uniform, stand-alone, no-frills buildings, and when that party by company policy does not list store phone numbers or any other contact information. There is no doubt in our minds that an Aldi will set a negative tone for the rest of the development.

No restaurant tenant has been secured, and Grey indicated that the rooftop seating may not be feasible.
We are skeptical of a phased-in site plan that depends on finding a restaurant tenant, or where a primary positive visual feature (rooftop dining) is not guaranteed. It allows the possibility that nothing will ever happen, or that in later years the site plan will be changed bit by bit when we aren’t paying attention. For a phase-in to work, the first component has to be a positive magnet. It has to be the best. It defines the rest of the development.

We asked about a tree save plan and were told that preserving any existing mature trees is not feasible on this site. There was no evident pervious surface beyond what is minimally required by code.
Two-or-three story buildings would provide square footage but minimize impervious surface and create potential to save some of the larger trees. Some surface green space is essential at this location. With its hilltop exposure, existing tree cover and impact on the Briar Creek watershed, we think any development on this site should use environmentally sensitive site design to the greatest extent possible, including under-building parking.

The proposed three-story residential building facing Briar Creek Road would overlook the Aldi parking lot at the rear and the Brentwood Apartments dumpster and bulky item pick-up area to the front. Residential parking would be shared with the Aldi. At a previous meeting we were told that this phase could wait until after the Morningside development and a residential development on the Renfrow property have been built.
Residential needs to be an upfront and prominent part of the plan, integrated with retail. Residential parking should be separate and secure. The development should be perceived as residential with some retail, not the other way around.

The developer says that he intends to work with the developer of the Renfrow property on design issues so the two sites appear to be coordinated.
Master planning the entire 13 acres as a unit is essential to ensure positive development. We think this presents an opportunity to create a new perception of the area. A phased-in development that begins with an Aldi will prolong, rather than negate, any existing negative perception of the area.
As a coalition of neighborhoods, we will collaborate with any developer who will maximize the potential of the Plummer/Renfrow sites with good urban design. We pledge to be reasonable and compromise when necessary to get the necessary rezoning. But we cannot support a development that sabotages itself from the beginning by proposing that a low-end box store set the stage for future development, and where residential appears to be an afterthought.
Briefly stated, and consistent with our Small Area Plan, we will look favorably on a site plan which:

Is master planned with the Renfrow property across the street;
Includes neighborhood input into the design;
Provides intensity of use consistent with a streetcar stop;
Has landmark architecture including a historical marker designed by a neighborhood committee;
If phased, starts with a positive magnet building to set the tone;
Has no stand-alone retail box stores;
Is an urban-style retail/residential mix with two-three story buildings;
Is chiefly residential with some neighborhood service-type retail;
Avoids a large, single parking lot;
Hides parking where possible and has secure residential parking.
Preserves some mature trees and green space;
Has protected pedestrian and bicycle circulation into and within the property.

Additional comment: The changing perception of Central Avenue
Historically along the Central Avenue corridor redevelopment has occurred under existing zoning, so neighbors had no opportunity to comment. Finally, we are presented with an opportunity to shape the future of our community. We take this responsibility seriously. The Plummer and the Renfrow properties, combined, present the largest, most highly visible and most valuable underutilized piece of property remaining along the Central Avenue corridor.
We are faced with a proposal from MarkPiercePoole asking us to abandon the basic tenets of our Small Area Plan to support a project that is completely inconsistent with the type of development and density preferred at a future streetcar stop in an urban neighborhood.
Central Avenue does present some image problems at this time. But to plan a development which ignores the positive trends is short-sighted and pessimistic.
Besides being at a future streetcar stop, this site is one-half mile from the Southeast Transit Corridor’s proposed Briar Creek Road station. It is a 5-minute walk to the planned Briar Creek Greenway, the first completed section of which is one-quarter mile away.
With the announcement of the Morningside project one-half mile down Central, new homes pre-selling for $350,000 just one-third mile down Central, the dramatic rise in residential property values and the young professionals investing in nearby neighborhoods, the future for this area is obviously bright. Condo-conversions are beginning to occur among the extensive apartment community, and the quality construction and design of these 1960-era apartments means that they will be viable, entry-level affordable homes for many years to come.

Links

City Zoning