|
March 12, 1985
<br />
<br />density developments in Churchland because of their unfavorable impact on roads, schools, crim
<br />and the city's financial ability to provide the necessary services. This 92 acre Hoffler
<br />Creek site remained for light industry and light commercial in the Comprehensive Plan as the
<br />projected $70-80 Million taxable real estate base, the zero impact on schools, the little
<br />need for other expensive city services, and the limited impact on Churchland overcrowding each
<br />supported this land use.
<br />
<br /> So much for history. The oil refinery and coal terminal projects are dead and the Sout=
<br />hampton Center that would have supported spinoff businesses is also dead with this proposal.
<br />The Comprehensive Plan, unfortunately, also appears to be dead. The environment changes
<br />quickly and we ail understand the need for adjustments. However, these adjustments must fit a
<br />revised plan, a plan that involves all the issues and community effort that went into th~
<br />current Comprehensive Plan. The proposal before you tonight does not seem to fit any plan
<br />and appears to be moving hastily without proper study. It does not address the impact of
<br />these proposed 655 dwelling units on roads, on schools, on other city government services,
<br />or on the associated cost to the city vs the anticipated revenues. We are sure an economic
<br />analysis of this proposal will show an unfavorable impact on the city resulting in higher cost
<br />to ail taxpayers. This 655 unit project will have a major impact on the already severe over-
<br />crowding now being seen throughout Churchland and will generate the need for additional outlay
<br />to cover schools, roads, police, fire protection, and other city services. This current over-
<br />crowding still does not reflect the many new developments already underway in North Churchland
<br />
<br /> One point always addressed during the Southampton rezoning and during the Comorehensive
<br />Plan development was the use of Merrifields neighborhood streets as major thoroughfares. In
<br />particular, Greenbrook Drive was not to be a direct connection between Twin Pines Road and
<br />Cedar Lane. During the 1970's the need for such a connector was recognized and provided for
<br />by the four lane Hoffler Creek Parkway. This parkway was built to the west of Twin Pines Road
<br />and never continued. Looking at the proposed site plan for tonight;s rezoning, Greenbrook has
<br />become the connector between Twin Pines Road and Cedar Lane.
<br />
<br /> Greenbrook Drive is already a heavily traveled neighborhood street, has no sidewalks,
<br />has many curves and parked cars, has many children and bike riders, and is also the only acces
<br />for the additional ll0 houses now being developed in the two new single family sites to the
<br />south. Making Greenbrook a through road not only opens it up to the 100 new single family hem
<br />in the proposed R-100 section of tonight,s rezoning, but also to anyone wishing to go £rom
<br />any development along Twin Pines Road, including Peachtree, Churchlamd North, Longpoint, and
<br />the Hoffler Landing Apartments~Townhomes, to Cedar Lane and the new West Norfolk Road. These
<br />commuters will find this a far quicker route then going Towne Point Road, Churchland Boulevard
<br />and old West Norfolk Road. This traffic will have a devastatin~ effect on Greenbrook Drive
<br />and Merrifield's homeowners. The impact of this situation has not yet been fully realized
<br />or considered as evidenced by recent extensive newspaper doverage on Churchland Road improve-
<br />ments that made no mention of this connector and by lack of any mention in the Planning Staff
<br />~nd Planning Commission minutes. Yet tonight, you are requested to approve the rezonin~.
<br />Perhaps the group housing hearings are supposed to address this issue, however, the Greenbrook
<br />extension is in the requested R-100 section and may not be covered in the group housing re-
<br />quest. In any even~, this ~ssue is too serious to let continue on its present path.
<br />
<br /> In conclusion, I believe enough concerns exist for you to reject this proposal as pre-
<br />sented and cause the developer and the City agencies to work out a revised plan. It would be
<br />a simple matter to redesign the proposed road network and plot boundaries to vrevent Greenwbro
<br />from being a through road. PerhaFs the best solution is to reevaluate the No~fler Parkway
<br />connector. To reduce density, other possible land uses such as all R-100 single family, light
<br />commercial, use of a portion of the site for a school, a fire house, or other similar needs
<br />should be considered.'
<br />
<br />Petition signed by 600 signatures. Barbara F. Senecal, 4048 Summerset Drive, and others.
<br />
<br />Michael J. Burr, 3885 Augustine Circle, representing Peachtree Community Association,
<br />sooke in opnosition~ [~ee ~×hibit 85-70[b)i
<br />Motion .or_Mr. Gra) a~c seconded by Mr~ Be~er, ~ha~ Mr..B~rr ~e ~r~nted a~d~t~onal time
<br />tO finish~his p~esentaiio{, and Was ad~p{e~ b~ unanimous vote'. .....
<br />
<br />K. C. Ackiss, 400 ~ueenswood Drive, representing Merrifields Civic
<br />opposition.
<br />Frances Olsen, 5305 Greenbrook Drive, opposed the rezoning.
<br />Peter B~unk, 4010 Queenswood Drive, in opposition.
<br />Sheila Musser, 5225 Greenbrook Drive, in 9pposition.
<br />
<br />League, snoke in
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Beamer and seconded by b4rs. Webb, Z 85-~ was denied, and by the followir
<br />
<br />Ayes: Beamer, Corprew, Gray, Lucas, ~ebb, Whitlow, Holley
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mrs. Lucas and seconded by Mrs. Webb, to recess was adopted by unanimous vote;
<br />Council rezess~d at 8%25 p.m. and returned ~e the Chamber at 8~35 o.m.
<br />
<br />(c) Zoning Petition Z 85-8
<br />
<br />Rezoning application of Bill Warner, Paul Soderquist,
<br />Richard Molenaar, and Michael Rowe, Owners, to rezoneaa
<br />parcel of land on the south side o~ Hatton Point Road
<br />lying between orooerties fronting Haywood Drive and Golf
<br />Street: from Residential E-100-K Conditinal to R-75-~ Con-
<br />ditional.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|