The Graham city council unanimously approved a 143-unit townhouse development along Jim Minor Road near the city’s Regional Park Tuesday night.
Along the way, the council jettisoned several proposed restrictions that the planning board had recommended, but added a few of their own.
The council had no problem with the one deviation from the city’s development ordinance requested by the developer, a not infrequent request, to allow buildings to be 20, rather than 25, feet away from each other.
But the potential height of those buildings had drawn scrutiny from the planning board members last month and a change this month from the city council.
While the general description was for two-story townhouses, the developer’s spokesman, company engineer Scott Krusell, told the planning board last month that the plan had been drawn to have “flexibility” to allow up to 50 feet in height, in case the developer decides to put in some three-story models.
[Story continues below special subscription offer.]
NO ONE ELSE PROVIDES THE DEPTH OF LOCAL NEWS COVERAGE YOU GET IN THE ALAMANCE NEWS – in print each week and online every day. MORE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT NEWS COVERAGE THAN YOU’LL FIND ANYWHERE ELSE. Subscribe now for unlimited online access to the latest, most comprehensive local news coverage.
The council agreed with the planning board recommendation to restrict the height of the 10 townhouses in two buildings closest to Angela and Jeffery Willis’ property to the west of the subdivision to no more than two stories.
But the council also added a restriction that the height be no more than 38 feet – which was described as still accommodating up to three stories – for the remainder of the subdivision, and that none of the townhouses (whether two- or three-stories) have more than three bedrooms, the description the developer had given.
Developer Shawn Cummings said he would likely make the bedrooms larger or add other features, but willingly agreed to the limitation. “We want to make Graham proud,” Cummings added of the upscale appearance intended among many of the subdivision’s features. The council has been concerned in some previous townhouse situations that too many cars are parked in front of townhouses, often lapping over the sidewalks in front of the development.
One particular development which had previously drawn the council’s concerns in that regard is Riley’s Meadow, which is located further north along Jim Minor Road.
Cummings’ plans had already provided one-car garages for all townhouses, as well as a wider, 17-foot, pad in front of the garage/townhouse, in order to accommodate two cars parked side by side.
[Story continues below illustration of the subdivision’s proposed layout.]
Also responding to previously-expressed concerns of Graham mayor Jennifer Talley and other council members, Cummings’ plan had provided wider streets, 31-feet wide, than some townhouse subdivisions. The wider streets could thus accommodate some on-street parking while still allowing sufficient room for garbage trucks or emergency vehicles.
There are also 19 additional parking spaces sprinkled near the mail kiosk and pickleball courts on the back side of the subdivision.
Removed from the planning board’s restrictions was a provision insisted on by planning board chairman Dean Ward that the front side of the development have a three-foot berm with eight-foot high plantings sufficient to conceal the view of the back of the townhouses from Jim Minor Road.
Instead, Cummings said that smaller plantings, properly fertilized, would ultimately provide a better screen.
The developer included a gazebo, dog park, and two pickleball courts as amenities in the subdivision. Planning board members wanted to give some flexibility to drop the gazebo, but also suggested, instead, a children’s play area with equipment.
But the council reverted to the developer’s request, although also including the requirement, which Cummings had first volunteered, to ensure that amenities are built during the first phase of construction.
Crusell explained that the developer, and subsequently the home owners’ association, should have the flexibility to modify the amenities over time.
Council and planning board members have previously expressed concerns that amenities promised by other developers sometimes did not materialize – at least not to the extent described to planning board members or, subsequently, to city council members – or at least not until the subdivision was almost complete.
The development also includes an alternative to the traditional retention pond. To outward appearances, it will be a carved out grassy field at the back of the subdivision, which would look “like a sodded field,” as the company’s engineer Krusell described it to the council, but water will be able trickle through the soil to a collection pond underneath.
Angela Willis asked about the buffers to her existing home and property, as she had at the planning board meeting. Cummings reiterated his assurance that his company would provide additional plantings, to be located on Willis’ property, to provide a thicker separation from the townhouses with the existing buffering required by the city’s ordinances.
Talley also insisted that the developer leave as many existing trees “as possible” in all parts of the buffering around the subdivision. She has criticized previous developments where clear-cutting of trees was undertaken, with the buffer consisting on small, rather than mature, trees.
The council ultimately approved the rezoning unanimously, 5-0.
Meanwhile, three other public hearings on rezoning requests were postponed until the council’s July 10 meeting.
They are proposals to rezone for:
• 29 townhouses at the corner of Ivey Road and Gilbreath Street;
• rezoning for business at the corner of South Marshall and East Pine Street;
• rezoning for multi-tenant occupancy at 1205 East Harden Street (NC 54).
Council member Bonnie Whitaker expressed frustration that the request for the South Marshall and East Pine rezoning, across from the Graham post office, was continually delayed for the past several months due to the absence of the developer Jason Cox. Her motion to continue the item until July carried with it that if Cox did not appear, the matter would be removed from the council’s agenda and be restarted through the planning board’s future consideration.
Engineer Chad Huffine, who is handling the East Harden Street rezoning, was at another local municipality, Elon, and relayed a request for delay until July 10, which was approved.
