Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RuskinSquare

Greenville City Council pushes Planning and Zoning Department to Delete Ordinance Restricting Gates

Recommended Posts

Short version: Greenville City Council asked the planning and zoning department to push deleting the existing ordinance restricting gates on developments and neighborhoods in the City of Greenville. It's expected to be on the agenda for the City Council's 11/26/2012 hearing.

The Planning Commission recommended wording that they felt would strengthen the existing requriement, but ultimately the final wording/deletion is up to City Council to decide.

A petition is circulating to support the Planning Commission's recommendation to strengthen the existing requriement:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gates_GVL_SC/

Long version in next post below

Long version:

The City of Greenville Planning and Zoning Department was asked by City Council to delete the City ordinance restricting gates, gate houses and guard houses unless the decision-making body determines there is public safety reason to allow them. (Reference: Planning Staff Report to the Greenville Planning Commission and City Council 9.13.2012, available online under the 9/13/2012 Planning Commission Agenda file Z-29-2012-TextAmendment.pdf)

The Planning and Zoning Department proposed language that would eliminate the restriction altogether. At its September hearing, the Planning Commission felt eliminating the restriction completely was not consistent with goals of the Comprehensive Plan. They suggested the Planning and Zoning Department revise the language to require a public hearing and broaden the criteria by which the decision-making body would evaluate a proposal including gates, etc. There was further discussion of this issue at the October hearing. (Reference: Planning Staff Report to the Greenville Planning Commission and City Council 10.31.2012, available online under the 11/08/2012 Planning Commission Agenda file Z-29-2012-TextAmendment-Gates.pdf)

At its November hearing, the Planning Commission approved recommended wording to City Council that they felt would strengthen the restriction on gates. The ordinance restricting gates is expected to be on the agenda for the November 26, 2012 City Council hearing. (Reference: my notes from the 11/08/2012 Planning Commission hearing). The Commission's recommended wording is based on Option 2 from the 10.31.2012 Planning Staff Report, less the word "marketability".

My neighborhood has started circulating a petition supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation to strengthen the existing restriction. The petition is online at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gates_gvl_sc/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I was at a couple of those planning commission meetings. I was pleased that most of the members recognized that eliminating the restriction on gates would undermine the goals of the comprehensive plan, most notably the need for connectivity and a healthy urban fabric. I did think that the commission chose the weakest of the three wording changes that were proposed by the city staff. I was in favor of saying that gates were prohibited unless they could be justified by health, welfare or public safety. This is broader than the current public safety exception and would allow developers to make more arguments that their gates served some purpose other than making the development more exclusive and therefore more expensive. Health, safety and welfare is also the general justification for government involvement in land use matters. The commission thought it was too broad for some reason and chose to go with a poorly worded and ultimately pointless option that the city council will almost certainly take issue with.

I'm going to try and attend the Nov 26th meeting to see how things progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Theurbandeveloper
      In my opinion I think that Greenville SC should go more out of the mid range building range. Don't get me wrong Greenville SC an amazing city. But i would love to see taller buildings so when I come to the downtown area it would overwhelm me  and others as well. But I think eventually Greenville will but i just would love to see it.!  As far as growing I would love to see Greenville to have better transport around the city. But walkability is great right now but not everyone wants to walk. But I don't mind but there are the elderly and other people who could really use public transport.  This rendering looks amazing,I would love to see this pattern more around Greenville. And with the One City Plaza I think it looks amazing and more areas would be amazing.! 
    • By All About Greenville
      For more than a year, the biggest question surrounding County Square has been which one of six developers would be chosen and what would be included in the redevelopment described by Greenville County officials as “game-changing” and “evolutionary.”
      That question is now answered.
      Read full story on GreenvilleJournal.com: https://greenvillejournal.com/2018/04/26/developer-chosen-for-1-billion-county-square-redevelopment/
       

    • By DPK
      Recently @Jones_ posted in the Triangle Economic News thread about Kane's desire for better transit at North Hills and how it would be amusing if he ended up being what could light a fire to cause light rail to actually become a thing around here.
      This could be a fun exercise in the creativity of people on here.  If you had to figure out how to run a light rail line between downtown (let's say the new Union Station) to North Hills, how would you route it?  Would you go straight up Capital and over?  Would you add a jog over to Five Points?  Where would you have stops (if any)?  Are the kind of developer that would be frugal/conservative to the community, would you bulldoze a daycare while laughing from your corner office, would you find a balance somewhere in between?  Go go go!
      I encourage use of Google's MyMaps to facilitiate and share ideas:
      https://www.google.com/mymaps/
       
    • By kermit
      So its been about 10 years since the Blue Line opened and Charlotte has spent a significant amount of energy talking about how to make the city more walkable and less car dependent. As I think about the walkable portions of Charlotte (Dilworth, Southend, PM, Wesley Heights (needs a grocery store), NoDa, etc.) all of these places were built before cars and they have merely been updated to accommodate modern needs.
      Try as I might I can't think of a single post-war neighborhood in Charlotte that has been made more walkable. Is there any neighborhood outside of the inner ring where walking to the store, school or transit is possible for more than a token few? The Blue Line created little or no change in the neighborhoods south of New Bern. Birkdale-like places seem much more like malls than neighborhoods to me and feel as isolated as a mall -- but I don't spend much time there so correct me if I am wrong. Brightwalk comes to mind as one of the best examples but AFAIK it lacks retail and is basically cutoff from any other neighborhoods by Statesville Ave and 77. LoSo is another place where people now want to walk, but it lacks the necessary infrastructure (sidewalks and transit access). We have even failed at connecting neighborhoods by means other than the car (e.g. crossing from Dilworth to Southend on bike or foot is still kinda hairy).
      So my question is what is missing from the development process? Is it zoning (e.g. lot size, sidewalk width, land use mix)? Transit? Traffic engineering (too many car sewers)? A combination of all or something else entirely?
      Ten years of experience suggests that we have not figured out how to make new walkable burbs -- is it time to give up?  Would giving up be a bad thing?
      EDIT: am I being too pessimistic? Does new multi-family in places like Park Road / Selwyn make new walkability available to some? Please tell me I have overlooked some significant positive change somewhere.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.