Jump to content

Pendleton Street [between West End and West Greenville]


vicupstate

Recommended Posts


The planning commission rejected the proposal for townhomes at 111 Leach St.    My favorite part of the planning commission meeting was this gem.  Person that recently moved into a high end townhome in the neighborhood speaking out about all the issues caused by…….high end town homes being built in the neighborhood.   

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chuckyvt said:

The planning commission rejected the proposal for townhomes at 111 Leach St.    My favorite part of the planning commission meeting was this gem.  Person that recently moved into a high end townhome in the neighborhood speaking out about all the issues caused by…….high end town homes being built in the neighborhood.   

Nothing like some hypocrisy at a planning commission meeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dino Hassiotis said:

This is an example of how RDV is arbitrary and capricious.This area needs a traditional set of zoning classifications that specify rights and restrictions clearly.

Except this property wasn't RDV, it was RM-2. It was before the Planning Commission because the owner was subdividing lots. That said, I'd be curious to know the PC's stated reason for reject this application. Seems to be consistent with the present use of the property and surrounding areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, GMoxley said:

Except this property wasn't RDV, it was RM-2. It was before the Planning Commission because the owner was subdividing lots. That said, I'd be curious to know the PC's stated reason for reject this application. Seems to be consistent with the present use of the property and surrounding areas.

Sorry,my wrong.Still, seems arbitrary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be curious to see the justification as well. I suspect the REAL reason for the denial was the working class rental units would be replaced with high end for sale ones. If the commission can't provide a legitimate reason that holds water, they could be subject to a lawsuit in circuit court. Chuckyvt, was a reason stated during the meeting? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GMoxley said:

Except this property wasn't RDV, it was RM-2. It was before the Planning Commission because the owner was subdividing lots. That said, I'd be curious to know the PC's stated reason for reject this application. Seems to be consistent with the present use of the property and surrounding areas.

I forgot that the Stone family trust had their RM rated properties added to RDV and that the Enigma corporation had RDV changed to C3. On the other side of Pendleton St.I would think that proposal was within the RM-2 zoning regulations.Seems that the city is setting itself up for another lawsuit.It appears that's  how they like doing business.

Edited by Dino Hassiotis
Misspelled word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VEEEERRRYYY   Interesting.......

The group that bought the Citgo station property at Mallard and Pendleton apparently has now purchased the office building at 607 Pendleton, the vacant lot next to it at Mallard and Pendleton, and the parking lot behind the office building that fronts on Arlington.  These sales closed on 1/6/22.

The office building sold for $2,475,000.  It had sold in June of 2016 for 1,890,000. 

The vacant lot (.53 acres) and the parking lot (.633 acres) together sold for 1.2 mm.  

The buyer had spent $2.5mm for the Citgo property on 7/1/21.  (1.15 acres).

 

   

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

VEEEERRRYYY   Interesting.......

The group that bought the Citgo station property at Mallard and Pendleton apparently has now purchased the office building at 607 Pendleton, the vacant lot next to it at Mallard and Pendleton, and the parking lot behind the office building that fronts on Arlington.  These sales closed on 1/6/22.

The office building sold for $2,475,000.  It had sold in June of 2016 for 1,890,000. 

The vacant lot (.53 acres) and the parking lot (.633 acres) together sold for 1.2 mm.  

The buyer had spent $2.5mm for the Citgo property on 7/1/21.  (1.15 acres).

 

   

 

 

 

Sounds like they are planning something big,how would that impact traffic on Pendleton St ?How would it impact Pendleton St after the proposed road diet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dino Hassiotis said:

 

Sounds like they are planning something big,how would that impact traffic on Pendleton St ?How would it impact Pendleton St after the proposed road diet?

Well, it sounds like it will increase pedestrian traffic, as long as the end users have places to walk to. How do you think that will affect your property value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dino Hassiotis said:

 

Sounds like they are planning something big,how would that impact traffic on Pendleton St ?How would it impact Pendleton St after the proposed road diet?

Other than in the village at peak times, GHS drop offs and pick ups, and the isolated construction project, Pendleton St is a ghost town. Hopefully this project will be a catalyst for improving Pendleton St and right sizing the number of lanes to better reflect its pedestrian/residential/business makeup.  

Edited by gvegascple
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, vicupstate said:

VEEEERRRYYY   Interesting.......

The group that bought the Citgo station property at Mallard and Pendleton apparently has now purchased the office building at 607 Pendleton, the vacant lot next to it at Mallard and Pendleton, and the parking lot behind the office building that fronts on Arlington.  These sales closed on 1/6/22.

The office building sold for $2,475,000.  It had sold in June of 2016 for 1,890,000. 

The vacant lot (.53 acres) and the parking lot (.633 acres) together sold for 1.2 mm.  

The buyer had spent $2.5mm for the Citgo property on 7/1/21.  (1.15 acres).

 

   

 

 

 

How long is the traffic analysis for a project like this going to take? The traffic on Leach St. seems to be an issue for a much smaller proposal.This project and any future development at the former unemployment office would bring a sizeable increase in automotive traffic to Pendleton St. DO YOU WANT OVERFLOW TRAFFIC COMING DOWN PERRY AVENUE TO 123 DURING RUSH HOUR? It will if Pendleton St is backed up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Leach St project I think the developer probably agreed to do a traffic study as a compromise with the community to make sure they are checking all the boxes.  The density isn't going up all that much, Ethel St is arguably underused, and has connectivity to Leach and Calhoun, so expect the traffic analysis to come back and say its ok.  The community also has concerns tied to Ethel and Leach being poor streets without sidewalks, and that is absolutely valid.  But the flipside is about the only way we're able to get sidewalks developed is to allow developers to build and require sidewalks as part of the project.  Outside of downtown the city does a poor job of prioritizing and building sidewalks imho. 

For the potential Pendleton St redevelopment, its a similar story.   Pendleton St is currently overbuilt/underutilized, as it used to be the main entrance into downtown from the west prior to Academy being built.  The biggest issue for a development there would be that the South Main/Pendleton St intersection is a mess, and its proximity to Mallard compounds the issue.   Perhaps something can be done to improve these intersections as part of the development there if it does materialize.

As a side note, I think an interesting idea for this area would be to redirect/re-sign that one block segment of Anderson as South Main Street and close the section of Main St in front of Saint Paul UMC.   That removes the poor S Main/Pendleton intersection.  You could turn that closed section of Main St into a small pocket park, and perhaps some parking for the church and the business across the street.  I'm sure it would be a battle to pull something like that off.                

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For vehicles, the sharp angle between South Main and Pendleton/Vardy restrictions sight lines and movement compared to a typical T intersection.   Left turns are prohibited between South Main onto Vardry.     Traffic from Vardry is permitted to turn right onto South Main, as long as you're able to make the sharp turn.   For vehicles, perhaps ineffective is a better term for this intersection.

For pedestrians, its terrible.  I feel like I'm playing frogger with my family each time we cross.  There is no pedestrian signaling, which is especially difficult at non-standard intersection, you're not sure which direction traffic is flowing at a given moment.  Its especially pronounced crossing Vardry near the intersection.  The way that traffic signal works, when you look and see red, you assume that means its safe to cross, but that is when traffic from Pendleton has a green light to continue straight onto Vardry.        

Edited by chuckyvt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, chuckyvt said:

For vehicles, the sharp angle between South Main and Pendleton/Vardy restrictions sight lines and movement compared to a typical T intersection.   Left turns are prohibited between South Main onto Vardry.     Traffic from Vardry is permitted to turn right onto South Main, as long as you're able to make the sharp turn.   For vehicles, perhaps ineffective is a better term for this intersection.

For pedestrians, its terrible.  I feel like I'm playing frogger with my family each time we cross.  There is no pedestrian signaling, which is especially difficult at non-standard intersection, you're not sure which direction traffic is flowing at a given moment.  Its especially pronounced crossing Vardry near the intersection.  The way that traffic signal works, when you look and see red, you assume that means its safe to cross, but that is when traffic from Pendleton has a green light to continue straight onto Vardry.        

I used to traverse this area on foot often. We always opted to take Anderson Street and avoid crossing the four lanes of Pendleton Street. Maybe a signal or just a marked crossing and flashing light at Mallard would provide a safer alternative for those who don't wish to take Anderson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 11:08 PM, Dino Hassiotis said:

How long is the traffic analysis for a project like this going to take? The traffic on Leach St. seems to be an issue for a much smaller proposal.This project and any future development at the former unemployment office would bring a sizeable increase in automotive traffic to Pendleton St. DO YOU WANT OVERFLOW TRAFFIC COMING DOWN PERRY AVENUE TO 123 DURING RUSH HOUR? It will if Pendleton St is backed up.

 

That is a joke.  The section of Perry parallel to Pendleton is not close enough to be impacted and the density added wont amount to nearly enough to impact the 4 under utilized lanes of Pendleton.   Any traffic study will confirm this.   Pendleton is not needed as a thoroughfare to anywhere but the village with Augusta and Academy feeding downtown.  Why would anyone wanting to go downtown take Perry?  Why would anyone wanting to go to residential or businesses on Pendleton take Perry?  Commuter traffic taking 123 to and from downtown have zero reason to take any other road.  An uptick in pedestrian, business, and residential traffic on Pendleton wont even register.  You are conflating the uses of Pendleton and Academy.

Edited by gvegascple
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2022 at 9:24 AM, chuckyvt said:

As a side note, I think an interesting idea for this area would be to redirect/re-sign that one block segment of Anderson as South Main Street and close the section of Main St in front of Saint Paul UMC.   That removes the poor S Main/Pendleton intersection.  You could turn that closed section of Main St into a small pocket park, and perhaps some parking for the church and the business across the street.  I'm sure it would be a battle to pull something like that off.                

I like that idea. That stretch of Main Street is a poor pedestrian experience as it is. That would definitely make it safer for pedestrians. Anyone know what the process would be to request this from the city?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.