By Mark Wineka
mwineka@salisburypost.
Good project, wrong location.
The Salisbury Planning Board shot down Tuesday a proposal by Crosland Properties to build a 104-unit, tax-credit apartment development at 1229 Statesville Blvd.
“I’m convinced that it shouldn’t go here,” Chairman Mark Beymer said before his board voted 9-0 to deny the project. The recommendation will go to Salisbury City Council.
The planners expressed many of the same concerns raised by an overflow crowd of Milford Hills and Meadowbrook residents opposed to the “Grants Creek Crossing Apartments.”
With presentations, questions and more than 20 people who argued against the apartments, the case involved almost three hours of discussion at City Hall.
“It’s not that the project is bad,” said Salisbury preservationist Ed Clement. “It’s just out of place.”
Representatives for Crosland said the apartments, which would include seven three-story residential buildings and a clubhouse, would provide affordable housing for families with incomes in the $20,000 to $40,000 range.
They spoke of the company’s strong, successful history with similar tax-credit developments and how those apartments have fit in with their communities elsewhere, despite similar opposition at first.
“We’ve not broken a neighborhood yet,” said Darryl Hemminger, vice president for Crosland Properties’ Raleigh office.
But opponents ó and the Planning Board ó had problems with the complex’s scale, its lone access point, its lack of connectivity to other streets, the density, the increased traffic it would generate and its possible impact on Salisbury schools.
Another key factor was an existing “special” or “S” district ordinance placed on the property in 2004 when the owners agreed to limit the uses of the property to single-family residential, medical park, office or institutional uses.
Crosland Properties sought to remove the former “S” district and have a Conditional District ordinance that allowed multi-family housing.
Jake Alexander and John Henderlite developed the Dorsett Drive office park adjacent to the 6-acre site in question and essentially carved out the template for the “S” district, Alexander said.
In effect, the 2004 approval created a covenant between the neighborhood and the city, and unless there was a compelling reason, that covenant should never be lifted, Alexander argued.
John Whitfield, a Milford Hills resident whose house backs up to the site owned by Milbrook Medical Park LLC, recalled that he and others supported the 2004 “S” district.
But now, Whitfield said, he has no confidence in assurances given to the neighborhood in the past.
Pam Hylton Coffield, a resident of South Milford Drive, asked why the land couldn’t revert to its original single-family zoning, since the medical park plans fell through.
Beymer and Planning Board colleague Robert Cockerl later spoke strongly for the covenant conveyed by the “S” district, and Beymer added, “I don’t believe this (apartment project) should ever have been explored.”
Planning Board member Craig Neuhardt said the residential neighbors made their concessions in 2004. He said the proposed project also failed to fit into a transect of moving gradually from low-density to high-density housing.
While communities will undergo change, Neuhardt added, “we can preserve the parts that are pretty good.”
Diane Young, also on the board, said the project made sense in terms of being close to grocery stores, drugstores and public transportation, and she applauded Crosland Properties’ mission to provide affordable housing in a quality fashion.
But Young expressed concerns about the impact on schools that already are overcrowded and have challenges meeting economically challenged populations.
Thirty single-family homes could be built on the site, and they would have far less impact on the schools than 104 residential units, Young argued.
“I think we have missed the school issue totally,” Meadowbrook resident Carole Young said earlier.
Planning Board member Karen Alexander, an architect, said the project “seems out of scale for this neighborhood and entirely too dense.” There would be an abrupt transition to “huge, three-story buildings” that would be at least 40 feet high, Alexander said.
Alexander and Planning Board members Tommy Hairston and Valarie Stewart all expressed concerns with access and how the lone entrance could cause problems for public service vehicles and residents in an emergency.
Stewart also cited safety concerns with increased traffic on Statesville Boulevard. Overall, she added, the residents of Milford Hills and Meadowbrook are not against the concept of affordable housing for lower-income families, and they aren’t opposing the project simply because it’s in their backyard.
The neighborhoods embrace community values, she said.
Stewart said she regretted having to vote against a project aimed at providing affordable housing for working families. “I so wish there was an alternative location,” she said.
Asked if Crosland had considered other sites in Salisbury, Hemminger said the Statesville Boulevard property was preferred because “it’s a nice location to live” and fits in with what the company and city of Salisbury are trying to accomplish,.
If you slide this kind of project to the margins of the city, you’re repeating a development pattern done all over, Hemminger said. It’s not necessarily the best approach for the company nor an economically thriving, diverse community, he added.
The Salisbury Vision 2020 comprehensive growth plan encourages housing for people of all incomes, and the tax-credit housing would allow working families to pay rent at a rate less than what they’d pay elsewhere, said Dionne Nelson, a vice president in the company’s Charlotte office.
“Allow these families to be part of the Salisbury community,” she said.
Stan Jordan, Tom Loeblein and Todd Dagenhart make up the ownership of Milbrook Medical Park LLC.
Jordan said Crosland would have to maintain the quality of the apartment complex through its own management to protect the long-term state and federal tax credits.
“We visited three of their tax-credit properties in Charlotte and were impressed with what we saw,” Jordan said. “… The impression we all had of the developments were that they were well-maintained, cared for and respected by the tenants, and that there was a sense of pride among those living there.”
Hemminger argued that a 60,000-square-foot medical office park would generate more traffic ó some 2,238 trips a day, compared to 754 the apartments would.
Gordon Correll of Edgedale Drive said the apartment project would not represent effective growth.
The project may look good on paper, Correll said, “but if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”