|
Tuesday, 20 February 2007 16:58 |
By DAVID FORBES
Citing concerns about traffic, stormwater runoff and how it would fit into the surrounding community, Asheville City Council voted 4-3 to postpone action ó indefinitely ó on a request for approval of plans for a controversial gated community in the Beaverdam area on Feb. 13.
The delay is intended to give the developers of the property, the estate of the late philanthropist Harold Thoms, time to return with a project that addresses councilís concerns.
The
162-home, 80-acre development has aroused significant opposition from
members of the surrounding neighborhood, many of whom packed the
chambers.
Explaining why
he finally voted to delay action, after first voting to reject the plan
outright, Councilman Brownie Newman said, ìThereís a lot of very
positive features to this project. Iím concerned what will happen to
the area if we donít work something out on this. But right now itís
just a little too much for me to support. I think if it was scaled
back, if it fit in better, the neighborhood might be able to accept it.î
However, Mayor
Terry Bellamy, Vice Mayor Holly Jones and Councilman Bryan Freeborn
disagreed, asserting that the concerns were too numerous and that the
project should simply be rejected. The developer could come back with a
different proposal later, they noted.
ìLooking at the location and the plan, I donít feel it meets our criteria,î Bellamy said.
ìLooking at the
traffic on Beaverdam and the level of service weíd be going to, thatís
also a problem,î Bellamy added. ìI think there are some bigger issues
that must be addressed before anything else is built on that property.î
Councilman Bryan Freeborn sounded a similar note.
ìPublic
facilities and access and high-end neighborhoods can co-exist ó they do
all over Asheville,î Freeborn said. ìThis doesnít meet the sort of
development I think is ideal.î
The vote to
delay came after council originally declined the developersí proposal
5-2, with only Cape and Councilman Jan Davis supporting it.
Davis, while supporting the project, did note that ìthe issue of it being a gated community is a worry.î
Councilman Carl
Mumpower also noted that he didnít particularly like gated communities,
but warned against council ìvoting based on our personal preferences.
We need to set a reliable expectation for developers. We cannot be
capricious in our decision-making.î
However, worries
then surfaced that if council denied the plan, the developer would
proceed with subdivision-style homes. Such construction, provided it
met the areaís zoning, would probably not be subject to councilís
review.
ìI am concerned
that weíll get another Kenilworth with this,î Councilman Jan Davis
said. ìThere we had a development with some problems, but when that got
bogged down, now thereís subdivision type homes going up there that are
having some devastating consequences.î
Cape had her
concerns as well and attached a series of conditions to her move to
accept the development, including pedestrian access to the community.
ìI just want
this development to be the best it can be ó Iíd like to see this worked
out,î Cape said. ìThereís a lot I like about this project, but a lot of
concerns I have too.î
She noted that
while she did not like gated communities ó a sentiment shared by many
council members that night, the city does not have an ordinance that
prohibits them, though some of its guidelines do warn against such
development.
Earlier, a
two-hour public hearing saw many residents of the area voicing their
opposition to the community. While concerned about the traffic, they
also asserted that the developers desire to gate the community
threatens the fabric of the neighborhood.
ìWhen I moved
here I found a place that valued its natural resources and community
over all ó we are in danger of losing all that,î resident Brad Brock
said. ìWe are not Ft. Lauderdale, we are not Atlanta, we are not
Charlotte, but weíre threatening to become just like those places ó
hyperdeveloped, uncontrolled and somewhere people want to move away
from. This is not being done for our community. A gated community will
do nothing but encourage fear and exclusion.î
His remarks drew applause from the audience.
But the
developer, Kent Smith, said that he needs access to the community
restricted to attract the sort of high-ended buyers heís looking for to
the development.
ìThe Thoms
estate couldnít continue to maintain this property without going into
real estate, so we came in to preserve the character of this area,î
Smith said. ìAll these amenities are things people will pay for. But
itís a fact of economics that those things lose their value if they
become available to the public at large.î
The planned homes are arranged in clusters, with green space inbetween. They are priced at $400,000 to $1 million.
He warned that
developing the area in a different style would result in ìat least 20
more homes ó and a lot more trees cut down.î
Earlier, Craig
Justus, an attorney representing the developer, asserted that ìthis is
a great project. This is the sort of golden goose that has helped make
Asheville prosperous. Youíre going to hear a lot against it tonight.
But please donít kill the golden goose. Weíre doing a lot of good
things.î
In contrast, Dr.
Peter Treveyan, a resident of the area, said that Justusí ìtalk about a
golden goose doesnít take into account the gridlock putting that many
homes in this area will create. That will kill the golden goose.î
Resident Nicki Marmo also noted that the Thoms estate has historically often been open to community residents.
ìMr. Thoms was
very community-minded,î Marmo said. ìHe would invite people from the
community in to walk around, to use the pool ó he even encouraged
children to camp on the grounds.î
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
