Jump to content

Pendleton Street [between West End and West Greenville]


vicupstate

Recommended Posts

RDV is a very new classification and it allows for a lot of flexibility but I think it also requires an approval for any use.  C-3 is 'heavy' commercial like what Pleasantburg, Laurens rd. and Haywood Mall have. The business owners feel their options would be more limited and more approval process involved if the change is made. 

 

Can someone point me to a good comprehensive source for traffic counts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Pendleton - Academy Street Rezoning

The Dec. 20th Planning Commission meeting (4:00 pm)  is probably the 'do or die' for this proposal.  There are some changes from the original version. 

The residents of the area are essentially all in favor. The Sphinx parcels at Academy and Pendleton will remain C-3 which dropped them from the opposition. Two business property owners are still adamantly against it. 

If you would like to communicate support for this rezoning, you can PM me for info on how to do so.          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've signed the community letter, and may send in an additional letter as well.  I hope we can get this through.   I do understand property owners being skeptical, but my guess is this will be a long term positive for property value along Pendleton.   But it takes a little vision to see it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://greenvillejournal.com/2018/12/12/123067/

the Greenville Journal has published (in my opinion) a very skewed article on this topic. The property owner featured here was very vocal and disruptive at the most recent community meeting on the rezoning. He took the tactic of saying that all of the city responses to his questions were lies and has found a friend in the Journal who seemingly did not bother to get supporting documentation for any of Dino’s claims. I hope all of you in support of this zoning proposal will write to the journal and attend the meeting at 4 pm on 12/20. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the article was ok.  Wasn't exactly how I would have framed it, but they did attempt to cover both sides.  If you put yourself in Dino's position, he built the OJs building specifically for a restaurant with a drive through 20+ years ago when nobody cared about Pendleton St.  With RDV zoning, a restaurant with a drive thru is conditional use, so he is concerned about the impact to his property.  I do get his point.   I wish there was a way to permanently grandfather in a restaurant with drive thru there.  

Also, at the community meeting, the person in this article, Dino, was fairly quiet and let everyone speak.  It was another person (his business partner perhaps?)  that was beligerant.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, chuckyvt said:

I thought the article was ok.  Wasn't exactly how I would have framed it, but they did attempt to cover both sides.  If you put yourself in Dino's position, he built the OJs building specifically for a restaurant with a drive through 20+ years ago when nobody cared about Pendleton St.  With RDV zoning, a restaurant with a drive thru is conditional use, so he is concerned about the impact to his property.  I do get his point.   I wish there was a way to permanently grandfather in a restaurant with drive thru there.  

Also, at the community meeting, the person in this article, Dino, was fairly quiet and let everyone speak.  It was another person (his business partner perhaps?)  that was beligerant.   

The city is likely to understand a new business operating in an existing building with a drive thru in that location. They're unlikely, and rightly so, to approve a NEW building with a drive thru. Plus, if the area becomes more attractive, he can sell that property for a large profit. It's easy for me to say, but I wouldn't be concerned.  Meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who oppose the rezoning, could you help me understand why? Is it simply that people don't want the local government meddling in their affairs? Are there complaints about how the CBD is being developed?

Mismanaged or non-managed development is how we end up with a lot of places, roads and neighborhoods not worth caring about (see the video below). The damage of poorly planned development might be irreparable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah that’s my mistake on who Dino is. I thought the quieter guy owned the car wash. 

The only opposition I saw at the meeting was from Dino and primarily the guy sitting beside him (I thought he owned the building that OJs is in but I could be wrong). His biggest complaints are that he thinks Stewart Spinks is getting preferred treatment because his property on 123 was originally going to be rezoned to RDV but in the new proposal it’s not, concern about reduced property values, and a lack of trust in the city that they will stand by what they are saying. The city repeatedly told this guy that all existing businesses can continue to operate as is as long as they don’t close for more than 6 months or make a capital upgrade of 50% or more of the property value.  He kept responding that the city was lying. Tough to move forward if you’re just going to say that everything someone says is a lie. 

There may have been some in the room who are opposed and stayed quiet, but it seemed like the vast majority were in favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey, long story short, some of the property owners on Pendleton believe the additional restrictions that come with Redevelopment District zoning will reduce the future income potential of their property.   Currently Pendleton St is C3 which is a fairly "intense" zoning, think Laurens or Pleasantburg Rd.   (ie almost anything can operate there).  Redevelopment District had a good bit more restrictions.  The property owners see it as reducuing the pool of potential tentants or buyers, thus reducing value.  

I think most believe this could easily be a net positive on prop values if Pendleton is redeveloped, but that takes vision to see.   It's not all the different than Main Street businesses that opposed the Main St road diet years ago.  They believed the reduced traffic volume was a negative, they couldnt visualize what Main Street would turn into. 

Dino is a bit of a special case, as his father was a business owner in the West End in the early 90s.  The city used relatively heavy handed tactics to force property owners out for the River Redevelopment.  While the results have been very much a positive, I believe the city would admit it wasn't their finest hour.  So yeah, there are trust issues.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chuckyvt said:

Dino is a bit of a special case, as his father was a business owner in the West End in the early 90s.  The city used relatively heavy handed tactics to force property owners out for the River Redevelopment.  While the results have been very much a positive, I believe the city would admit it wasn't their finest hour.  So yeah, there are trust issues.  

Yeah, that was a mess. Riverplace is great, but they used creative notions of eminent domain to force the last few property owners out, and their (the latter's) argument that it was essentially a forced transfer to well-connected developers had merit. Not enough to stop the "wheels of progress.," but merit nevertheless. Ends-means.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2018 at 2:14 AM, StrangeCock said:

I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't say for sure, but that article sure sounds like how Greenville works. There are a lot of people here who want to make Greenville a gated community. Only certain types of people are welcome.

The city is merely trying to do  on Pendleton Street what it has already done in the CBD, the West End and West Greenville.  The West Greenville  section of  Pendeton St. had this exact same zoning change being discussed here a year or two ago. It seems to have only helped IMO, as that area continues to evolve.  

The Journal article was completely one-sided and made no attempt to get the other side of the argument.  These changes will actually HELP Dino, but he is too narrow in his focus to see it.  He sees his property and the entire corridor as it is today, when in fact it is ripe for an entire makeover. A makeover that would put a lot more money in his pocket than by merely leasing a .70 acre parcel to a single tenant.  It is not like they are trying to take his property and give it to someone else.  And as someone stated, the existing business is grandfathered in.  They are trying to raise the bar of what is there, such that all the current owners will benefit.   

BTW, the property his father lost to eminent domain was NOT on the River,  nor part of more famous Riverplace example. It was in the heart of the CBD and was part of the earliest efforts to revive DT.   

If we had refused to 'break any eggs' in order to make a cake, DT, West End and West Greenville would have remained downtrodden.  

 

      

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

The city is merely trying to do  on Pendleton Street what it has already done in the CBD, the West End and West Greenville.  The West Greenville  section of  Pendeton St. had this exact same zoning change being discussed here a year or two ago. It seems to have only helped IMO, as that area continues to evolve.  

The Journal article was completely one-sided and made no attempt to get the other side of the argument.  These changes will actually HELP Dino, but he is too narrow in his focus to see it.  He sees his property and the entire corridor as it is today, when in fact it is ripe for an entire makeover. A makeover that would put a lot more money in his pocket than by merely leasing a .70 acre parcel to a single tenant.  It is not like they are trying to take his property and give it to someone else.  And as someone stated, the existing business is grandfathered in.  They are trying to raise the bar of what is there, such that all the current owners will benefit.   

BTW, the property his father lost to eminent domain was NOT on the River,  nor part of more famous Riverplace example. It was in the heart of the CBD and was part of the earliest efforts to revive DT.   

If we had refused to 'break any eggs' in order to make a cake, DT, West End and West Greenville would have remained downtrodden.  

 

      

Well articulated, Vicupstate.

 

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.