news-record.com

NEWS

Board opposes College Hill housing plan

Article
Comments (21)
Images

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

(Updated 5:15 am)

By Amanda Lehmert
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — College Hill residents won the first battle Monday night with a developer hoping to build student housing off Spring Garden Street.

The Greensboro Zoning Commission voted 7-2 to deny a rezoning request that would allow Edwards Communities to build more than 200 apartments on land used by Newman Machine Co. The request now moves to the City Council, which will hear the case Jan. 5.

Abutting landowners already have filed a protest petition on the issue, meaning that at least three-fourths of the City Council must approve it for the rezoning to pass.

More than 90 people attended the rezoning hearing Monday. Most audience members opposed the proposal and wore “Save College Hill” buttons.

Edwards Communities, based in Ohio, wants to invest $45 million in the 200-unit project. The apartments would be marketed to students.

The company would have an on-site property manager, a bus shelter on Spring Garden, fences, and evergreens to shield abutting properties. A panic button would be in each unit.

The developer argued that the plans address the need for more student housing as UNCG grows.

The developer plans to remove leaking underground storage tanks from the property, said Henry Isaacson, an attorney representing the property owner and developer.

“It’s a first-rate, quality student complex that will assist the university with its housing needs,” Isaacson said.

Opponents argued that the large student housing development would diminish the positive changes made to preserve and enhance the historic neighborhood in recent years.

“We love our neighborhood and are proud to live there,” sad College Hill resident Julie Davenport. “We do all agree than we can do better than a dormitory.”

Many zoning commissioners agreed with opponents that the development was too dense for the neighborhood and would bring too many cars into an already congested area.

“My overall concern is the sheer size of the development itself … in such a very small location,” said zoning board member Patti Eckard. “I think it’s too big.”

Zoning commission member Mary Skenes, who supported the development, said the project might help the neighborhood by moving student renters to one area and freeing up other housing to be owner-occupied. The project would also eliminate the blighted industrial property, she said.

“This neighborhood is named College Hill for a reason,” Skenes said. “I see this project as a way of eliminating a number of issues the neighbors themselves have raised tonight.”

Contct Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

Additional Photos

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

kurts12gauge

December 14, 2009 - 10:59 pm EST

Good

AcTiOnJaXn

December 15, 2009 - 12:19 am EST

Come on... We should be supporting this development. Where's the support from the college, and the small business owners in this area. These students help our community prosper. If they have no housing they move on to better places and you lose in the end. No one wants to live in a ghost town.

DRA922

December 15, 2009 - 5:59 am EST

College Hill doesn't oppose the redevelopment of the Newman Whitney site. We just oppose this particular plan. As the Zoning Commission recognized, the scale and density of the proposal are wildly inappropriate for a project in a residential neighborhood. The huge buildings and the 725 students squeezed into a small space -- and the traffic and noise they would create -- would have an extremely negative effect on a great many families and homeowners. The investment they have made in their homes in College Hill has raised the neighborhood's property values dramatically, benefiting the entire city.

We recognize that something will be done with the property, and many neighbors will be happy to see Newman Whitney go -- the company is not an entirely wonderful neighbor. But the answer isn't to build a giant dormitory complex at the expense of College Hill. This land is a very valuable piece of in-town property near UNCG. We thank the Zoning Commission for recognizing that we don't have to jump at the first redevelopment project that comes along. The College Hill neighborhood and the historic district are assets for the entire community. We can do better, for the sake of College Hill and for all taxpayers in Greensboro.

David Arneke
President, College Hill Neighborhood Association

VALawyer

December 15, 2009 - 8:23 am EST

What type of development would you prefer if not apartments?

CollegeHillFan

December 15, 2009 - 9:07 am EST

I think it would be a mistake to compare the Edwards development to traditional apartments. The proposed development is for student housing, basically a dormitory rented by the bed. If you don't come with a roommate, they'll appoint you with one unless you get a 1 bedroom. Traditional apartments would be preferred to this development. They would allow for all types of people (singles, families, under grads, master students, retirees, etc) to live there. This mixed population has a calming effect and reduces some of the problems that would occur with a 100% student population. Some suggestions for alternatives to this development: look to Southside, Wafco, Revolution Mills, mixed use development, etc.. There are a lot of options out there, Greensboro can do better than the Edwards development.

DRA922

December 15, 2009 - 9:21 am EST

The Edwards proposal is not to build apartments -- this thing would be a massive dormitory, rented on a bed-by-bed basis, not on an apartment-by-apartment basis. Big difference.

What type of development should occur there? The city's comprehensive plan calls for mixed-use commercial development on that site. That could be a mix of retail, office and residential use. Such a project, designed for an appropriate scale and density and with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood, could be a very good solution for that property.

d_random

December 15, 2009 - 1:06 pm EST

Mixed-use commercial development is a lot more appropriate for this area in my opinion.

bballfanatic

December 15, 2009 - 7:53 am EST

The Zoning Commission did the right thing. This is a historic district. Student housing is needed but not in this area. As a resident of New Graden Road near Jefferson Elementary, the Zoning Commission also voted to not allow the High Point Bank and the project that is currently vacant land on the Northwest corner of Garden Lake and New Garden. But the "businessman" city council voted for it. Stated more tax revenue. Let's see now, a church and 6 houses torn down, lost property taxes. Another bank built, now about 8 in that area, property tax bank (2 house were on the land the bank occupies). Empty land across Garden Lake Drive another 4 houses gone. Where is the increased tax revenue Mr. Councilman?

buzzman

December 15, 2009 - 9:18 am EST

I haven't heard of anyone else with a plan to develop the property. So, unless the city council is smarter than the zoning commission, it will just sit idle for years to come. The idea of getting quite a few students into one nice complex, rather than having them scattered all over the neighborhoods, certainly makes a lot of sense. They are already somewhere nearby and currently drive their vehicles. Logic would say that if they are living close enough to UNCG to walk to class, actual vehicle traffic will be reduced. From a noise standpoint, wouldn't it be better to have them all in one area, away from your homes, rather than as your immediate next door neighbors?
Looks like we have a bunch if NIMBYs who can't see past their noses!

truth

December 15, 2009 - 9:23 am EST

buzz,

I think you hit on something. A lot of the folks protesting WANT these kids in their back yards. They are making rental income off of them. I think part of the resistance is the fear of losing that rental income and having a large competitor with new amenities next door.

That being said, I agree that the project is just too big. They need to scale it back to about half that number and I think it would work.

I'm curious. If they build this new dorm, will there be wooden staircases like the ones that led to the deaths of the Greensboro college and UNCG student a few years back?

DRA922

December 15, 2009 - 9:37 am EST

Just because you haven't heard of any other plans for the property doesn't mean that such plans don't exist or couldn't surface in the future. The site isn't idle now and it's hardly likely to be. Contrary to the inaccurate information being promoted by the city planning staff and the developer, Newman Whitney is still operating at the site. It appears to be a going concern, and without a buyer for the property, the chances of them having the resources to buy a new site and actually move out appear to be essentially zero.

Also, if you think putting 725 students into one confined space is a good idea, how about having them move next door to you? We don't object to having students in the neighborhood -- we already have many of them and always will. College Hill is already doing our part to accommodate UNCG students. Adding 725 more in one property is just too much in too small a space.

logicfairy

December 15, 2009 - 10:01 am EST

Away from my home? It is a block away. We invested our life savings in our house, and pay extra taxes to steer development in this historic district toward an owner-occupied neighborhood. The city comprehensive plan for this area does not support this kind of development, yet the city planning staff reluctantly approved it. Traffic won't be reduced. I work with students and they drive everywhere. They won't only be driving to classes. They'll need to buy groceries, clothes, visit friends, go out on dates...

How would you feel in our place? I'm guessing that you'd stand with us.

logicfairy

December 15, 2009 - 9:55 am EST

This property definitely should attract better prospects. As we have stated many times, we aren't NIMBYs as far as any development. We don't have a problem with students living in the neighborhood. But this is a giant dormitory in a space that can't handle the traffic. Lee St. is ripe for redevelopment and would be an excellent choice for a project of this kind. It doesn't need to be in that particular area. I would rather have the property stand vacant and wait for a better deal that go with one that is clearly inappropriate. I'd rather UNCG bought it that these folks, to tell the truth.

Risright

December 15, 2009 - 11:12 am EST

Understand how real estate development works. You can't just wish and hope for a specific type development on land. A developer first determines what is the highest and best use for the land. Then they have to factor in the cost of the land, coupled with local code requirements, building costs,financing etc.etc. If these numbers and analysis do not make sense to the developer or the lender, then the project does not get done.

This type project both size and use is the only thing that makes sense when taking into account all the considerations ie. location, lot size, area demographics, costs, demand. If a smaller or different type development made sense, it would have already been built or been proposed.

The fact that this project is even contemplated, proposed and likely able to be financed in this time of no development getting financed tells you that it absolutely is the right project, for the property. If it were not, then it would not be financed and the developer would not be wasting his time and money.

The issue for College Hill property owners is not the development itself but rather they realize that this project will take away their renters. 75% of the people living in the district rent their homes and most of these renters are students. When they leave the older homes for the amentities that college students demand and this project will offer, it will force the College Hill property owners to upgrade their homes to compete. And then they will have to abide by the stringent and expensive requiremeents that they themselves have used to keep others from acquiring the houses and fixing them up becasue of the cost. They do not want to compete in that arena because they know they will lose, it is too expensive. So they will be against any residential property that is large enough to take their renters away from them and continue to say that they prefer a mixed use, grocery store, retail facility, knowing full well it will never happen.

So if the development is defeated, College Hill will cheer becasue they think they are preserving their way of life. But truth beknown is they are killing the exact type development that will create interest in the district, encourage new investors to buy the homes in the district and fix them up,clean up an industrial eyesore that is old Greensboro and help UNCG to continue to attract young talented students to our community.

nippded twistle

December 15, 2009 - 11:57 am EST

Be careful....logicfairy will call you smug.

DRA922

December 15, 2009 - 12:06 pm EST

I understand this about real estate development: The first offer isn't necessarily the best one.

Your idea that the way things work is that "a developer first determines what is the highest and best use of the land" implies that the community itself has no role in deciding how it will grow and evolve. Yes, if developers ruled the world, this kind of project would be the only option. But in the real world, there are many possibilities for this site, and a great many of them would be better than putting a 725-bed dormitory project right on top of a residential neighborhood.

Also, with UNCG growing as it, the idea that this project will wipe out the rental market in College Hill is laughable. The big landlords haven't spoken out against this project. There are hundreds, probably thousands of units newly built and still being built in close proximity to UNCG, and the College Hill rental market shows no signs of suffering.

logicfairy

December 15, 2009 - 2:06 pm EST

I don't own rental property and neither do most of the people that I know who opposes this development.

NT - you're smug. Just wanted you to be right for a change. :-)

scgriffi

December 15, 2009 - 2:12 pm EST

As one of the few UNCG students who attended the meeting last night, I just want to say that Skenes' theory that students will simply migrate to the new development is completely wrong. The rent in the proposed apartment complex would without a doubt be over $600 a month. My rent on Tate Street right now is $300. There is no way I could afford that increase! Building an expensive new complex is not going to cause less students to rent in College Hill. I also wanted to say that I resent the implication made by some residents that college students are bad neighbors and drivers -- I do what I can to help my neighbors, I've only been in one accident ever, and I want to "Save College Hill" as much as everyone else. Let's work together, not put each other down.

CollegeHillFan

December 15, 2009 - 8:16 pm EST

scgriffi, I hope you continue to help fight this development. You make a good point with the rental rates on Tate Street being significantly less than this development. As a student you have an interesting perspective to bring to the discussion since you are Edwards' target audience.

luvdowntowngso

December 15, 2009 - 3:11 pm EST

I couldn't understand what the big fuss was about this development until I did some research and discovered how massive it was going to be. I can't blame the residents of College Hill for being upset about this project. If the developer wants to serve college students and do something good for the city of Greensboro, take this massive project to Lee St! Buy up some land, buldose and a few crack houses and tatoo parlors and help us redevelop Lee St. into something we can all be proud of! Lee St. can handle the additional traffic this project would produce.

Ashley Powell

December 16, 2009 - 4:59 pm EST

Had it with NIMBY's!

I was the happiest guy in town when I heard about the project, and my feelings were echoed by many of my neighbors: we finally get to see an end to the Newman Machine eyesore. We merrily tromped down to the local church one Monday night to meet with the developer, and he told of all the resources at their disposal, their respect for the community, and willingness to listen. Then they told us about the 750-1000 STUDENTS! Whoa! Did I hear that right? Now I'm not crazy about more students, but it kinda comes with the territory; so I was willing to accept a dormitory, but 750 bodies from any demographic just doesn't make sense in that spot. I don't care if they're 750 nuns.

It's interesting that a couple years ago, a much, much smaller project there received just a little public opposition and yet was denied. The reason: too much traffic!? I can't help but wonder how this present project has made it as far as it has. It's no secret that the developer has hired some influential friends.

Luckily the zoning commissioners could see through the smokescreen. What smokescreen? There is an effort to paint the neighborhood as a bunch of NIMBYS in order to focus public opinion on the red herrings of right vs wrong, selfishness vs needs, obnoxiousness vs graciousness.

This is not a question of right vs wrong, it's about good judgement, something the zoning commission showed in spades when they explicitly said this project is too big.

Let's hope the city council has the courage to do the same.