news-record.com

NEWS

Council approves North Elm rezoning

Wednesday, February 3, 2010
(Updated Thursday, February 4 - 5:38 am)

GREENSBORO Fourteen townhomes will be built along North Elm Street, after council members approved a controversial rezoning Tuesday night.

The Greensboro City Council allowed the rezoning in a 6-1 vote over concerns from neighbors who filed a protest petition.

“This development works in this neighborhood,” said Councilman Zack Matheny, who lives in the area. “I think it would actually increase the attractiveness of that area.”

Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small voted no. Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan abstained from the vote because her husband represented opponents in the case. Councilman Robbie Perkins was absent Tuesday night but also would have abstained because his company has a business interest in the case.

The project calls for the demolition or removal of the Commencement House, the home at 2207 N. Elm St. designed by Woman’s College students in 1958 with the help of noted local architect Edward Loewenstein.

The project site stretches from Elm to West Cornwallis Drive and encompasses land where four single-family homes are located.

Developers have changed the project multiple times to meet neighborhood demands.

The plans currently call for 14 townhomes no more than 35 feet tall.

Builder Dwight Stone, who will construct the development, said it will be designed to look like other high-end townhomes that his company has built in Greensboro.

“What we are going to develop, from a quality perspective, will certainly be an asset to the neighborhood,” developer John Stratton said.

Property neighbors filed a protest petition against the rezoning, which meant the project had to gain support from at least six council members to be approved.

Project opponents were concerned about adding more traffic to an already congested intersection. They feared this type of zoning could continue to move into the neighborhood of what has been single-family homes for decades.

“They came to the conclusion the best plan here was single family,” said Don Vaughan, an attorney who represented the neighborhood interests on the project.

The project’s developers argued that vehicle trips created by the townhomes will be less than an earlier proposal, which called for a medical office on the site.

Matheny pointed out that the neighbors previously had supported the project with 24 units. Vaughan said neighbors gave weight to the concern of those adjoining the property who were not sold on the idea.

Patrick Lucas, a UNCG professor who has argued for preservation of the Commencement House, said it fits in with the neighborhood and could be renovated.

“It’s really a tough building to try and move,” Lucas said.

Stratton has said anyone who wants to move the home or take it apart would be allowed to do so, although there has been debate about whether it is in good enough condition to be relocated.

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

 

Accompanying Photos

Photo Caption: The Commencement House was built by Woman’s College students in 1958 with the help of local architect Edward Loewenstein.

Additional Photos

City Council Insider

News and notes from the Feb. 2 meeting of the City Council.

Library project delayed
Council members delayed approving a $283,000 contract to design the new Lake Jeanette library branch until they set their budget priorities for next year.

City backs pharmacy school
The council passed a resolution to support a new pharmacy school at UNCG. The UNC General Administration will bring consultants from around the country to Greensboro in March to evaluate the school’s proposal.

Council supports post office
Council members approved a resolution asking Greensboro’s congressional delegation to fight for the post office at 1852 Banking St. The post office branch, located off Battleground Avenue, might be closed as a cost-cutting measure. Councilman Danny Thompson voted against the resolution.

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.

Abner Doon

February 2, 2010 - 9:11 pm EST

Zack Matheny 2007 Contributors

$500 Dwight Stone

$250 John Stratton

mahony

February 2, 2010 - 11:24 pm EST

Zack is pretty cheap!

I wonder who else contributes?

kurts12gauge

February 3, 2010 - 12:08 pm EST

Zach is all about Zack. He's like this in his personal and professional life as well.

jeaniegnc

February 2, 2010 - 11:03 pm EST

That is one of the six votes in favor of the project. Now figure out why the other five voted for it . I believe that as long as we have so many people on the city council that have a financial interest in items coming before them, we don't stand a chance.

TmV83

February 3, 2010 - 1:36 am EST

I value history and can appreciate the concern by those who wish to preserve this Greensboro landmark. With that said the house in question has been rotting, lifeless for a while now. Drive by the house one day: the yard is so overgrown the driveway is almost completely covered, the gutters are spilling over with debris, the roof is falling in, and the bricks are starting to scatter around the walkway, it is not in living condition.

I think that it is considerate for them to offer the house up to anyone who wishes to move it or to take it piece by piece in an attempt to rebuild. However, I feel like this situation is going to be similar to the house in Fisher Park that was just voted to be demolished. An offer and time frame is presented to the public to make a move or provide the funds to make it worth while to change the vote and nothing will materialize from the public. Now, similar to the house in Fisher Park - the decision to rezone will and has caused an uproar, an offer has been given to move whatever object of value is present per discretion of the general public, and odds are no one will make a move.

There are so many areas in Greensboro that are empty, falling apart, or honestly an eye sore. Yes I do cherish the rich history of this city. But I also know that there are plenty of people out there that need jobs right now, construction workers - project managers - etc. Maybe I'm trying to be too optimistic, but I don't think our City Council members sit around thinking of ways to throw the public under the bus to make a dime in their own accounts. At least I hope not. I really think, with this decision, they are trying to make our city look a little better, put a few people to work, and make a currently vacant lot into a profitable area for North Elm Street.

buzzman

February 3, 2010 - 4:51 am EST

TmV83 - Well said! This was a no brainer for anyone with any common sense.

malvern

February 3, 2010 - 2:49 pm EST

"city to look better" --do we really need another set of generic town homes, which could not be built at a worse time. Give me unique architecture over bland McMansions any day. And while the offer to move the home is considerate, the cost of moving the house will be close to six figures, something I am sure the developers won't assist with.

Historic properties actually increase neighborhood property values - while enhancing the uniqueness of Greensboro.

TmV83

February 3, 2010 - 4:18 pm EST

Who said the proposed townhomes will be of generic design? And why would anyone say that now is a bad time to put people to work. The land is across from State Street Shops of which I'm sure will also benefit from the increase in traffic brought on by residents of the new projected townhomes. I did not read anything above saying that the developer refused to assist in the move of the house. If that is something that is suppose to be understood then the responsibility to find ways to alleviate the "six figure" expense to relocate the house will be left up to whom ever wants to take that battle on. If it is important enough for someone to save this house then start beating the pavement and find grants, loans, etc to make it happen. But when push comes to shove I can almost guarantee those who object to this project won't go as far as putting pen to paper. Honestly I hope I'm wrong but instead of saying "coulda shoulda woulda" why not think of the positive domino effect this can have on the neighborhood.

malvern

February 3, 2010 - 5:32 pm EST

Actually, Preservation Greensboro has been very active in working to find a partner or buyer for the property. The problem is the developer has only given a limited number of months to find a solution for a process that can typically take a year or so to materialize. Grants, loans, buyers -take time to process and find partners.

That same "increased traffic" you mention might bring new customers to the local shops, but on the flip side the very same "increased traffic" is also a potential problem with increased traffic congestion-- in an already congested area -- have you seen Cornwallis during rush hour?

BTW--any townhome built is generic, because they are townhomes, a dime a dozen.

newtogso

February 3, 2010 - 5:58 am EST

One person's common sense is another's folly.

Oona

February 3, 2010 - 7:45 am EST

greensboro continues to look for an 'identity' - your historic buildings embody this- designed by local college students with help from a well known architect- this is what makes a community unique and not 'generic'

business is business- supply and demand- however, i don't believe we are wont for new homes at this time.

to improve your neighborhood and community you need to respect it.

Mick

February 3, 2010 - 8:28 am EST

I am with TMV83 on this one. This battle was lost long ago. Unfortunate as it is. Personally I wish an individual or entitiy would have purchased and renovated the home but that did not happen. Time to move on with this one.

malvern

February 3, 2010 - 2:38 pm EST

the battle was actually won,the zoning request denied by the previous council.

mule4ever

February 3, 2010 - 11:07 am EST

1. If you are going to list political contributions for those in favor of the project, it is only fair to list contributions for those opposed as well.

2. Just because something is old does not make it worth saving. Things old and new can still be ugly.

Oona

February 3, 2010 - 1:56 pm EST

probably not the fact that it's old, but rather the fact that it was built by women ~ students at greensboro college; and contributed to by a famous local architect

Bosco

February 3, 2010 - 2:25 pm EST

Why has many of this "famous architect"'s homes already been demolished in Irving Park?

malvern

February 3, 2010 - 5:35 pm EST

yet many of the homes have been preserved, and in fact a couple years ago -- there was a successful tour of Loewenstein homes, all located in the Irving Park neighborhood.

oh good grief

February 3, 2010 - 11:46 am EST

One question: Where were all the "concerned"neighbors when the house was sitting there going to rack and ruin?

I would love to know the from-the-beginning-up-to-the-present-day ownership history of that house and how long it has been since it was occupied by its last title-holding owner(s) (not merely someone renting it).

kurts12gauge

February 3, 2010 - 12:07 pm EST

There's only so much a neighbor can do when the home is owned privately. Not as if they can go over to the house with tools and start working. Ive been in it and its a wonderful work

Amanda Lehmert

February 3, 2010 - 4:43 pm EST

Good question. As I understand it, there have only been two property owners of this home before it was bought by developers. There was the original owner followed by a second owner who purchase it in 1994. It seems to have been owner-occupied until developers bought it in 2006.

oh good grief

February 3, 2010 - 6:44 pm EST

Ms. Lehmert, thank you for the response regarding past ownership of the "Commencement House."

rec5000

February 3, 2010 - 12:01 pm EST

Sounds like we have two calls for legislation to mandate maintenance and yard care. 1) Developers who own property must maintain all yards and buildings so that structures will not be considered liabilties by council and used as grounds for redevelopment later on, and 2) Neighbors must make City Council aware of poorly kept houses and yards so that their absense of complaints later on are not used against them by Council for redevelopment concerns. Are these really the new rules you all want in place?

We already have some degree of this in Minimum Housing Codes. I wonder why this developer was allowed to let this structure fall apart right next to Irving Park, when other developers throughout the city are chased around by city inspectors. Oh ya...the political contributions.

Bosco

February 3, 2010 - 2:20 pm EST

This should have never been a "rezoning" issue. Townhouses should be allowed in all residential zones. Our micro managed, antiquated development ordinance, and that includes the new one, stiffles creative development. It creates a livelyhood for rezoning attorneys and the bloated City Planning Staff

malvern

February 3, 2010 - 2:35 pm EST

no big shock -- new conservative council = big business favoritism; despite an earlier zoning denial and the protest of a majority of neighborhood and Greensboro residents, developers win out. Sad.

Bosco

February 3, 2010 - 2:59 pm EST

Who built your house? The Three Little Pigs? Why are developers always protrayed as the bad guy? Lay off. I promise what will be built there will be much better than what exists. Just look a block up Cornwallis

weatherwithyou33

February 3, 2010 - 4:49 pm EST

Overall I agree that something new will be better than the existing and it will help enhance this area. I just wish it was going to be built by a quality builder.

malvern

February 3, 2010 - 5:01 pm EST

Developers are portrayed as bad guys because often times (most, not all) developers only see the bottom line and have little to no thought on how their projects impact neighborhoods or the city. Often times, like this case, they see what they want to see and do not consider how their designs can actually be a negative impact on a place.

I just don't see how over-scaled, overpriced town homes can enhance the area, especially with such a glut of these on the existing market place...drive down Pisqah Ch. or New Garden and you can see nothing but vacant town homes.

whatnow

February 3, 2010 - 4:13 pm EST

I agree that historical buildings and landmarks should be saved, however with that said, if this house was important to someone why was it left to fall to ruin? Where have they been since 1958 to keep it up? I would love to see things like this stay here, but not as a ruined heap. If this property had maintained its importance it would have been kept in pristine condition as a historical sight. The hour of destruction is not the time to start crying "foul."

malvern

February 3, 2010 - 5:11 pm EST

the main problem is that the house's "modernist" architectural style has only recently become recognized as "historically significant".

kurts12gauge

February 3, 2010 - 8:08 pm EST

Next time Zack Matheny is up for re-election, please remember this case. He is nothing more than a special interests whore. Takes money from developers and does their bidding via city council votes. He's a disgrace

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search