192 replies to this topic

[GSP Tiger]

Article:  400 new housing units planned for Greer
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/4/25

Two residential developments are going up along South Suber Road.  One is a 150-unit townhome complex with some commercial development at Brushy Creek Road adjacent to Dollar General.  The other is a 250-unit apartment complex, also with some commercial development, at Chick Springs Road.  

An automotive dealership may be going up in front of Wal-Mart on East Wade Hampton.  It is unspecified whether it will be a new car or a used car dealership.

[Spartan]

I'm glad to see that there is more going on in Greer than suburban housing developments!

[GSP Tiger]

Agreed.  

*Bloom's new location on West Wade Hampton Boulevard eastward of North and South Buncombe Roads will be Greer's first upscale supermarket.

*Greer aims to annex southward towards the Sugatit community (SC-101 @ SC-296).

*Greer is moving forward to relocate some officies into a new city hall.

*Greenville Hospital System is replacing Allen Bennett with its new Greer Medical Campus on South Buncombe Road.

[GSP Tiger]

Article:  Greer considers new police station
The Greenville News (SC)
2006-4-26

With Greer's City Hall eyeing towards relocating down East Poinsett Street, the police department has some room to relocate its businesses and courts into a new building.  

Article:  Greer speaks up on recreation wishes
The Greenville News (SC)
2006-4-26

Similar to Mauldin's town center, Greer is looking at adding some recreational features for its new minucipal complex.

[Spartan]

I sincerely hope that they do not move Greer's city hall to Wade Hampton. That would be a horrible mistake. I don't know where E Poinsett is exactly... but I hope its nearer to downtown than the other site.

[GSP Tiger]

Agreed.  Though the space is enough for some functions, having all of your city's offices on the highway instead of downtown is akward.  Clemson already does it.

I do not know if there's an up-to-date design for the new City Hall.  I assume it will be a low-rise two or three level building of some sorts.

Progress is being made for the new Walgreen's at West Wade Hampton Boulevard and North Buncombe Road.  The former Precision Tune was razed and the site is being graded.

[GSP Tiger]

Article:  Greer moves to build new police, courts building
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/5/10

Greer's city council approved the first reading to borrow five million dollars to build ts new police and courts building.

Article:  Clean air trumps developers' interests in Greer
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/5/10

With a long streak of rainless days and warm weather, tree clearing was halted to minimize the threat of wildfires igniting and spreading.  This has casued a delay in new homes going up at Blue Ridge Plantation and possibly several other communities.

[GSP Tiger]

Article:  Spartanburg steps into Greer annexation fray
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/5/12

Spartanburg county council will bring up Greer's annexation required for services at an upcoming meeting.  The issue arises from southwestern Spartanburg County's growth with new residential communities going up and the need to extend sewer lines to the people.

[Spartan]

I don't think that will have any impact. I think that Greer is right in this regard. I think that the City of Spartanburg should do the same thing. It should require that anyone using its services be annexed into the city.

[GSP Tiger]

Article:  Greer to use eminent domain for land
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/05/16

Greer will attempt to take over land necessary to build the new municipal complex on.

Article:  Traffic issues deadlock Greer planners
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/05/16

Residents fear the growth of new residences and businesses along the Suber Road corridor will bring more traffic and congestion.  Adding turn lanes and signals at select areas may slightly help the area.  

I wonder how long it will take before someone fast tracks plans to widen Brushy Creek and Hammett Bridge roads to five lanes?  I can see South Suber Road being three lanes, but five from West Wast Hampton Boulevard to Hammett Bridge Road would be better.

Edited by BoDragon, 16 May 2006 - 09:52 PM.

[Chickenwing]

BoDragon, on May 16 2006, 10:41 PM, said:

I wonder how long it will take before someone fast tracks plans to widen Brushy Creek and Hammett Bridge roads to five lanes?  I can see South Suber Road being three lanes, but five from West Wast Hampton Boulevard to Hammett Bridge Road would be better.

When they were working on the bridge, I really thought they were going to 5 lanes on Brushy Creek Rd.

[GSP Tiger]

Chickenwing, on May 17 2006, 04:59 PM, said:

When they were working on the bridge, I really thought they were going to 5 lanes on Brushy Creek Rd.

That is set in stone.  The state claims there's not any funds to go around to pursue the project.

Where the old bridge was is where a new bridge will be constructed for two lane Greer bound traffic.  While the state still owns the land, it would not hurt to build it and not worry about later on when the actual widening happens.

[GSP Tiger]

Article:  Housing units approved in Greer
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/5/23

Greer City Council voted in favor of three new developments in their final readings in a recent meeting:

• a 240-unit apartment-condo-commercial development on South Suber road
  
• a 150-unit townhome-commercial development on Brushy Creek Road
  
• a 20-home single-family subdivision on Abner Creek Road

An informal request was made to look at improving and widening existing roads at the time a new residential and/or commercial development was going up.

[btoy]

BoDragon, on May 23 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

Article:  Housing units approved in Greer
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/5/23

Greer City Council voted in favor of three new developments in their final readings in a recent meeting:

• a 240-unit apartment-condo-commercial development on South Suber road
  
• a 150-unit townhome-commercial development on Brushy Creek Road
  
• a 20-home single-family subdivision on Abner Creek Road

An informal request was made to look at improving and widening existing roads at the time a new residential and/or commercial development was going up.

All passed with a 5-0 vote.  Mayor Danner brought up some great points, traffic is not to be considered during zoning decisions that is to be reviewed during the subdivision proceedings.  Also he reminded the councilman and asked that the planning commission be reminded that in SC Roads are not improved and schools not expanded until after the traffic and students are there, it is not done before hand so quality development can not be put off till the roads are improved because that will not happen until there is to much traffic.

Also, the paper kind of misrepresented Joe Baldwin’s request regarding road widening.  His request was that they city should consider requiring all new projects to grant the city right of way for future road improvements for free at time of approval so that the city, county or state, whoever does future repairs will save time and money by not having to acquire property at that time.

I like that idea because they developments will cause the need for future improvements and it will save tax payer money meaning in the long run more roads can be improved because they will not be spending dollars to acquire right of way, they will be getting it for free.  Also, it will make sure that new structures are set far enough back that when roads are widened the structures will not have to be purchased and torn down because they are to close to the road.

[breed]

btoy, on May 24 2006, 09:38 AM, said:

Mayor Danner brought up some great points, traffic is not to be considered during zoning decisions that is to be reviewed during the subdivision proceedings.

I think that might be a bit of a political cop out.  Land use intensity is one of the primary generators of traffic... land use intensity is not affected by subdivision regulations, but by zoning.

After approving zoning for a certain amount of density, you can't go back and change the density due to traffic concerns.

Of course, "traffic" can mean alot of things.  If they were arguing about whether a site should have a turn-lane or something like that, then that is a subdivision regulation issue, but from the article it appears as though they are discussing the traffic generated by the site.  That definitely is a zoning issue.

[btoy]

breed, on May 24 2006, 10:30 AM, said:

I think that might be a bit of a political cop out.  Land use intensity is one of the primary generators of traffic... land use intensity is not affected by subdivision regulations, but by zoning.

After approving zoning for a certain amount of density, you can't go back and change the density due to traffic concerns.

Of course, "traffic" can mean alot of things.  If they were arguing about whether a site should have a turn-lane or something like that, then that is a subdivision regulation issue, but from the article it appears as though they are discussing the traffic generated by the site.  That definitely is a zoning issue.

Except that the planning commisions job is to look at land use period, not traffic caused by a project.  The zoning being given was PD-R which does not set a density.  With any PD before development has to begin the plan has to be accepted, that is when traffic will come in to play.  That is win density will be approved that is when turning lanes etc. will be disucussed.  

BTW, the parcel planned for 240 Apartments and Townhomes on Suber Rd. is one block off Wade Hampton Blvd. which is 6 lanes.  That is two more lanes than Woodruff Rd. and with less traffic than Woodruff Rd. if a project of that nature is not approved for that type of property, then where?  Land is to expensive to put a project like that right on Wade Hampton.

[g-man430]

BoDragon, on May 23 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

Article:  Housing units approved in Greer
The Greenville News (SC)
2006/5/23

Greer City Council voted in favor of three new developments in their final readings in a recent meeting:

• a 240-unit apartment-condo-commercial development on South Suber road
  
• a 150-unit townhome-commercial development on Brushy Creek Road
  
• a 20-home single-family subdivision on Abner Creek Road

An informal request was made to look at improving and widening existing roads at the time a new residential and/or commercial development was going up.

This development sounds like sprawl too me.

Edited by g-man430, 24 May 2006 - 02:53 PM.

[Chickenwing]

btoy, on May 24 2006, 08:38 AM, said:

Also, the paper kind of misrepresented Joe Baldwin’s request regarding road widening.  His request was that they city should consider requiring all new projects to grant the city right of way for future road improvements for free at time of approval so that the city, county or state, whoever does future repairs will save time and money by not having to acquire property at that time.

I like that idea because they developments will cause the need for future improvements and it will save tax payer money meaning in the long run more roads can be improved because they will not be spending dollars to acquire right of way, they will be getting it for free.  Also, it will make sure that new structures are set far enough back that when roads are widened the structures will not have to be purchased and torn down because they are to close to the road.

I think there are a few things that would have to be addressed before something like this could take place.

1) Is the developer basically "paying off" the city with land to get the project to go through?
2) Who maintains this right of way? The owner of the property or the city? State road rights of way are maintained by the state, and if the city has to maintain all of the rights of way, it could get costly and would not be so beneficial if the road is never widened.
3) Looking at point 2, if the road is not anticipated to be widened, does the city require the right of way anyway? Or are there 2 sets of rules based on whether the city may want to widen the road or not?
4) How will density of a project be viewed: on the acreage with or without the right of way? Could be substantially different.

Anyway, these are mostly questions are mostly just for thought. Sounds like eminent domain, without just compensation to me.

[btoy]

Chickenwing, on May 24 2006, 03:02 PM, said:

I think there are a few things that would have to be addressed before something like this could take place.

1) Is the developer basically "paying off" the city with land to get the project to go through?
2) Who maintains this right of way? The owner of the property or the city? State road rights of way are maintained by the state, and if the city has to maintain all of the rights of way, it could get costly and would not be so beneficial if the road is never widened.
3) Looking at point 2, if the road is not anticipated to be widened, does the city require the right of way anyway? Or are there 2 sets of rules based on whether the city may want to widen the road or not?
4) How will density of a project be viewed: on the acreage with or without the right of way? Could be substantially different.

Anyway, these are mostly questions are mostly just for thought. Sounds like eminent domain, without just compensation to me.

Those are all valid points that would have to be discussed, at this point it is just a councilman's idea and nothing more.  

You could view it as emminent doman but then you could argue that the right of way would never be needed wiht out the projects, also you could argue that it is no different than requiring developers to ad turning lanes.

as regards to point 4, my opininon is that density should be based on the original property size.  And for question 2, if you have a nice development and you want it to stay looking nice you are going to take care of that right of way.

Quote

This development sounds like sprawl too me.

Which one? With Greer's large hospital campuses their are going to by hundreds of people working in the area.  These projects are very close to the hospitals in areas of high density.  In the sense that they are not in the Core of downtown Greenville you could say ya, maybe it is.  Or you can look at their proximity to the center of Greer and jobs in Greer and it sure looks alot better than putting them 5 miles up HWY 290, 101 or 14 where plenty of people live but no one works.

[Chickenwing]

g-man430, on May 24 2006, 03:52 PM, said:

This development sounds like sprawl too me.

They sound like fairly dense infill to me.