Greenville County Square redevelopment

[GvilleSC]

36 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

There have been a lot of mistakes to be sure but none that are fatal, IMO.  The county has a long standing reputation for not giving a rip about what the neighbors think on any rezoning.   One one member is representing those affected either.  They pretty much let the owner do what they want. 

The city s different in that a lot of sway is given to resident views and the majority of the council represents the affected areas, wherever they may be. 

Hindsight is 20/20, but in retrospect the county could and should have approached the city and the neighborhood that it was planning to sell  the property and that the 6 story limitation was onerous.  This should have predated the selection of a developer.  

The county should have looked for the relocation site for the state offices sooner as well, but that is water under the bridge.  One very legitimate issue is the fact the the chosen site is not on a bus route. That absolutely has to be remedied and is indicative of the tunnel-vision that some have on government decisions and policy.   

  

That may have been a concern earlier, but the  county is on-board with this now. The issue is the city , regarding the height and the incompatibility (real or perceived) between the neighborhood  and this project.  The affordable housing element has to be spelled out in more detail as well.   

Good post!

[gman430]

B. Z-10-2019

Application by County of Greenville for a PD MAJOR MODIFICATION REZONE of approximately 40 acres located at UNIVERSITY RIDGE, THURSTON ST, HOWE ST, S CHURCH ST, PRESIDENT ST, and WAKEFIELD ST from PD, Planned Development District to PD, Planned Development District (TM#s 0091010700100, 0091010700200, 0069000300300, 0069000300303, 0091010100100, 0091010200100, 0069000300301)

 

Staff report presented by Jay Graham, Ginny Stroud, and Dwayne Cooper

• Planning Manager Jay Graham gave a presentation of the PD proposal and addressed some of the misconceptions about the project.

• Community Development Administrator Ginny Stroud gave an overview of the affordable housing component and explained that the $2 million commitment by Greenville County could be leveraged to develop or preserve affordable housing.

• City Engineer Dwayne Cooper gave an overview of the proposed traffic mitigation and before-and-after comparison of anticipated LOSs at affected intersections.

• Note: Full staff report is on file at the Planning Office

• Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval to city council with comments and conditions

 

The commissioners asked staff questions and for clarification on items including:

• Measurement of building height in stories vs. feet.  Typical industry standard is 12-15 feetper floor.

• Clarified that the full staff report, including all department comments and conditions, are included whenever the commission approves “with staff comments and conditions.”

• Whether the proposal meets the PD open space expectations. Staff explained this proposal is similar to the C-4 district; the developer has struck an appropriate balance.

• Discussion of affordable housing and how many units could be anticipated. Staff stated there are other projects with leveraged funds in the Greenville Housing Fund and they have been able to create or preserve 360 affordable units with $1.9 million.  Staff explained what it means to “preserve” affordable housing.

• Clarification of traffic impacts and mitigation.  Asked whether other, or additional, means of traffic mitigation could be proposed.  Mr. Cooper stated there are other possible measures, but they are meeting the ordinance.

• Why a hospital is proposed as a permitted use.

• Discussion of open space expectations given proximity of development to the “emerald necklace” of parks and open space around downtown.  Staff’s condition about restricted-access stadiums not counting towards their open space requirement does not affect staff’s position about meeting open space requirements.

• Clarification about proposed setbacks.  They are the same as the C-4 district.

 

Applicant presentation by Butch Kirven and Phil Mays

• Phil Mays of RocaPoint Partners gave a brief presentation of the proposed PD modification

• In response to the earlier question about hospitals, Mr. Mays explained that a small or medium-size medical office may be part of the project, but likely not a major hospital.

• County Council Chairman Butch Kirvendiscussed the history of the property and the selection of RocaPoint as the developer. Said the County was naïve to the city’s process when they first started working on the development proposal, but they have learned along the way.  Said they are trying to look for a project that blends in and is respective of the adjacent neighborhood.  The project also has to work economically.

 

Public comments in support of application:

• Sally Eastman, 400 E McBee Ave – considers project smart growth; housing needed for people moving to Greenville; concerned about affordable housing and visual appearance of buildings

• Ryan Peiffer, Parkins Mill – supports project; dense and walkable; change is difficult; partnership between city and county and developer is fantastic; 

• Fletcher Smith, Law firm at 112 Wakefield St – tentatively supports project; has concerns about affordable housing, school impacts, access to his business, gentrification, impacts to black community; will sue city and county if access to his law firm is blocked.

• Chad Prosser, SC Governor’s School – supports project, concern about security and development around residence halls; development could provide new performance space and new connection to Swamp Rabbit Trail

• Charles Rainer, Woodville Ave – said the issues can worked through; there is a need for the project

• Graham Moore – the community supports the project; urban in design; puts Greenville forward

 

Public comments opposed to application:

• Felsie Harris, President of Haynie-SirrineNeighborhood Association – prefers to keep the current Haynie-Sirrine zoning; neighborhood has been there over 100 years

• Robert Arden, Taylors, SC – expressed concerns about the economic report submitted with the application; omits risks and other information; need more complete study

• Dan Weidenbenner, Greater Sullivan Neighborhood Association – follow the existing PD; disrespect to neighborhood and community if they do not follow existing PD

• Becky Warth, 1 Seawright Lane – discussed the community meetings held by the developer and city; community was engaged and provided input on original H-S plan; H-S plan still applicable today; asked for community to be involved in changes to plan

• Steve Dowe, 221 Cleveland St – traffic concerns; asked for broader traffic study; wants to ensure construction traffic impacts to neighborhoods are limited

• Horace Butler, Greater Sullivan Neighborhood Association – there was no opportunity to provide input to the County Square project; concern about community engagement and procedural inclusion

• Jean Martin, 205 E Hillcrest Dr – concern about limited commitment to affordable housing; need more public input

• Emily Tobin, 14 McHan St – time of Planning Commission meeting during working hours prevented many in community from attending; concern about loss of buffer from commercial district

• Alexandra Harris, 12 McCloud St – concern about affordable housing and limited community engagement; concerns in original H-S plan are still valid today

• Jason Smit, 111 Elm St – developer should seek support of the neighborhood; projects need more scrutiny and transparency before permits are issued; need more open space; commercial FDPs in Haynie-Sirrine have required PC approval

• Jennifer Olinger Alynn-Perri, 111 N Calhoun St – concern about lack of on-site affordable housing; service industry employees cannot afford to live downtown; slow down to do project well

• Joe Hindman, Haynie-Sirrine resident – concern that red tape, zoning, and permitting requirements for Greenville are stifling small business and entrepreneurs 

• Ian Thomas, 209 Perry Avenue – concern about limited opportunity for public comment on such a major project; existing H-S code was created with input from neighborhood; concern about precedent of changing code – other neighborhoods could have theirs changed in the future; supports following existing code

• Efia Nwangaza, Malcom X Center for Human Rights – concern about displacement of black and low-income residents from inner-city Greenville

• Joseph Coyle, 6 Lark St – concern about displacement of at-risk students from GHS

• Pat Dilger – worked on original H-S Neighborhood Code; concern about change of character and inconsistency with H-S Master Plan; sketches only show 12-story buildings; 20 stories an “unnecessary gift to out-of-town developers;” suggested a compromise of keeping the original zoningcode intact, but grant a variance for two 12-story towers, one 10-story tower, and two 8-story buildings from the original site plan

• Clarence Thornton, 114 Douthit St – quoted from the Bible; not enough affordable housing; concerns about traffic and gentrification; says people have moved away from northern cities to escape tall buildings and congestion

• Nathan Owens, 6 Lark St – concern about impacts to weather and changing Greenville character

• Connie Williamson, 16 Riley Hill Ct, Greer –supports affordable housing; important for service and tourism industry

• Jalen Elrod, Greenville – concerned about decimation of traditionally black communities in Greenville

 

Commission Discussion

• Asked for clarification about the neighborhood meetings that were conducted and opportunity for public input.

• Asked staff about whether public input was provided on the proposed County Square project as part of the Downtown Strategic Master Plan.

• Asked for clarification from the applicant on how the $2 million figure was arrived at for the affordable housing component.

• Staff would decide if projects are meeting the design requirements and principles in the proposed PD.

• Concern about some of the pictures included in the application; discussion about which ones should be removed.

• Discussion about scale and massing of the proposed buildings.

• Discussion about restricting buildings to 12 stories currently, and requests for a 20-story building could be decided later as a PD amendment.

• Discussion about removing “hospital” as a permitted use.

• Discussion about changing “may” and “should” terms to “shall.”

• Comments that the proposed PD plan lacks a defined character and the images and design standards have no defining elements or character.  Discussion about how to refer back to Haynie-Sirrine Master Plan.

• Discussion about differences between the Haynie-Sirrine Master Plan and the Haynie-Sirrine Neighborhood Code: what is aspirational vs. enforceable; discussion of whether to refer to existing Master Plan to guide and inform County Square development.

• Discussion about compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines.

• Comparison about the organic nature of the existing downtown; want to avoid a monotonous feel in the County Square district.

• Discussion about the conceptual nature of the project.  In other PDs where the Planning Commission did not have detailed plans for proposed buildings, like Adams Hill, they required commercial FDPs be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.  Suggested requiring the same for County Square FDPs.

• Discussion of whether to increase setbacks around the Governor’s School dorms.  The Commission decided to follow the existing proposal.

• Discussion about requiring automatic review of the traffic and parking studies if the automatic triggers included therein are not reached within 5 years.

• Comments that $2 million is not adequate to develop affordable housing and the Commission does not have enough information to approve the affordable housing plan at this time.

 

*Motion: Commissioner Smith moved to recommend approval of item Z-10-2019 to City Council with the following comments and conditions:

1. All staff comments and conditions.

2. Building heights shall be limited as follows:

a. Zone A is limited to 6 stories (no change).

b. Zone B is limited to 8 stories, with two buildings up to 12 stories.

c. Zone C is limited to 8 stories, with two buildings up to 12 stories.

d. Zone D is limited to 8 stories (no change).

e. Zone E is limited to 4 stories (no change).

f. Zone F shall be limited to 6 stories.

3. In Section 13, all “should” and “may” phrases are to be changed to “shall.”

4. Section 13(C)(1)(b) Uses Permitted by Right, is amended by deleting item ix, “Hospitals,” and adding it to Section 13(C)(2) Special Exceptions.

5. Section 13(C)(3)(b) Dog day care facility, is amended by deleting item iv, “Overnight stay of animals is allowed.”

6. Section 13(F)(1) is amended as follows: 

a. “… The intent of this section is to promote creative solutions that futureall users may want to incorporate within the sub-district.”

b. “… Pertinent to an attractive physical environment for the public is the design of the site, use of colors and materials, signage, building orientation, architectural style, and compatibility with the surrounding urban and Haynie-Sirrine communitycommunities.”

7. Section 13(F)(2) bullet-point #6 is amended as follows: “… Variations in the design of each building in terms of color, architecture, and material is encouragedrequired in order to create interest and reduce avoid a monotonous appearance.”

8. Removal of the following images from Section 13(F)(3):

a. The top-left image in Figure 3A on page 33.

b. The top-left image in Figure 3C on page 35.

c. The top-right image in Figure 3D on page 36.

9. The traffic and parking plan shall be reviewed within 5 years of issuance of the first building permit, regardless of whether the triggers within the plan have been reached.

10. Final development plans shall be presented for review and approval by Planning Commission.

 

Second by Commissioner Gardner.  The motion carried by a vote of 5-2, with Commissioners Johnson and Keller voting “no.”

 

[gman430]

https://greenvillejournal.com/news/county-square-project-hangs-in-the-balance/

[cabelagent]

2 hours ago, gman430 said:

https://greenvillejournal.com/news/county-square-project-hangs-in-the-balance/

Wow....this has become an unexpected drama.   

[gman430]

13 minutes ago, cabelagent said:

Wow....this has become an unexpected drama.   

Yep. I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire project gets cancelled now. This is what happens when the government gets involved. 

[ingvegas]

5 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Yep. I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire project gets cancelled now. This is what happens when the government gets involved. 

I'm optimistic for compromise resulting in a win-win-win (developer-county-city).  Government is not perfect, but it stands to represent the desires of many (local citizens), rather than wishes of a few (corporation). Realistically, the land is too valuable for Rocca to walk away from. If they do then someone else (better?) will more than happily step in and do it right. 

[gman430]

18 minutes ago, ingvegas said:

I'm optimistic for compromise resulting in a win-win-win (developer-county-city).  Government is not perfect, but it stands to represent the desires of many (local citizens), rather than wishes of a few (corporation). Realistically, the land is too valuable for Rocca to walk away from. If they do then someone else (better?) will more than happily step in and do it right. 

If the RocaPoint deal doesn’t work out then the site can’t be developed for ten years according to the contract signed. 

[vicupstate]

1 hour ago, gman430 said:

Yep. I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire project gets cancelled now. This is what happens when the government gets involved. 

The government is involved in EVERY project.  There are many projects everywhere that galvanize opposition.  Hopefully this is worked out, and I think it will be. It would be a serious mistake if this project doesn't happen. 

[cabelagent]

2 hours ago, ingvegas said:

I'm optimistic for compromise resulting in a win-win-win (developer-county-city).  Government is not perfect, but it stands to represent the desires of many (local citizens), rather than wishes of a few (corporation). Realistically, the land is too valuable for Rocca to walk away from. If they do then someone else (better?) will more than happily step in and do it right. 

Is there clarification or definition for “right” ? Me thinks no one knows one...hope they can compromise. 

[GVLer]

What is the developer proposed that is “wrong”?  This appears to be a balanced and quality project. Greenville cannot cap building height indefinitely. 

[gman430]

Greenville is not alone: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article238095089.html

[GVLover]

10 hours ago, gman430 said:

Greenville is not alone: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article238095089.html

That’s straight up gentrification considering it’s friggin’ Little Haiti (Miami). That said, I‘m 110% confident County Square will move forward. 

[apaladin]

On 12/5/2019 at 1:34 PM, cabelagent said:

Wow....this has become an unexpected drama.   

You mean expected not unexpected, correct? Tried to tell y'all this is not going to happen at least in our lifetime(most of us). Just too huge a project with too many entities involved. It's DEAD as gman would say. 

[distortedlogic]

19 hours ago, apaladin said:

You mean expected not unexpected, correct? Tried to tell y'all this is not going to happen at least in our lifetime(most of us). Just too huge a project with too many entities involved. It's DEAD as gman would say. 

[gman430]

I wonder how much money the county has spent on this project so far? I’m sure it’s a lot with all of the engineering, surveying, architecture, etc . Would be a huge waste of money to cancel it now. 

[gman]

6 hours ago, gman430 said:

I wonder how much money the county has spent on this project so far? I’m sure it’s a lot with all of the engineering, surveying, architecture, etc . Would be a huge waste of money to cancel it now. 

Some folks must live a glass half empty life. Stay positive. Life is too short otherwise. This project will not be cancelled. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by gman

[gman430]

15 hours ago, gman said:

Some folks must live a glass half empty life. Stay positive. Life is too short otherwise. This project will not be cancelled. 

Any evidence of this? County Council could easily vote no next month. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did honestly. 

[cabelagent]

18 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Any evidence of this? County Council could easily vote no next month. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did honestly. 

 Someone has missed their cup of coffee this morn.   

Edited December 12, 2019 by cabelagent

[gman430]

40 minutes ago, cabelagent said:

 Someone has missed their cup of coffee this morn.   

Definitely not. Read the Greenville Journal article:  https://greenvillejournal.com/news/county-square-project-hangs-in-the-balance/ Definitely doesn’t sound good for the future of this project. 
 

“But county council’s hesitancy to proceed with approving the funding mechanism through its second reading doesn’t bode well for the ordinance’s third reading, which will be held in January 2020.”

Edited December 12, 2019 by gman430

[gvegascple]

Is all of this holdup over building height?  is it that  the developer refuses to take on project unless they get a certain height and the city wants to limit that? We do have to be careful about having too much unused office space on the market.  I would think that demand should drive things like building height.   Its also a little outside of the urban core of downtown and up on a hill, maybe building heights would be weird if too high over there.  I am not sure what the driving factors are for each side though.  I speed read the articles so I probably missed those parts.

[GvilleSC]

13 minutes ago, gvegascple said:

Is all of this holdup over building height?  is it that  the developer refuses to take on project unless they get a certain height and the city wants to limit that? We do have to be careful about having too much unused office space on the market.  I would think that demand should drive things like building height.   Its also a little outside of the urban core of downtown and up on a hill, maybe building heights would be weird if too high over there.  I am not sure what the driving factors are for each side though.  I speed read the articles so I probably missed those parts.

The market will ultimately drive all of the construction. Nobody is going to build a 20 story building (residential or office), if it can’t be supported. So, I don’t think we have to worry about too much supply— they won’t get financing if that’s a concern. 

[vicupstate]

2 hours ago, gman430 said:

Definitely not. Read the Greenville Journal article:  https://greenvillejournal.com/news/county-square-project-hangs-in-the-balance/ Definitely doesn’t sound good for the future of this project. 
 

“But county council’s hesitancy to proceed with approving the funding mechanism through its second reading doesn’t bode well for the ordinance’s third reading, which will be held in January 2020.”

I think the county is only vacillating because they perceive the city as doing  so.  If the city comes thru, the county won't be  an issue.  The city has to get 4 votes from a council that could anger a big block of voters and two of them are brand new. Mayor White has his work cut out for him, but if anyone can pull it off, he can.   

 

 

[gvegascple]

2 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

The market will ultimately drive all of the construction. Nobody is going to build a 20 story building (residential or office), if it can’t be supported. So, I don’t think we have to worry about too much supply— they won’t get financing if that’s a concern. 

What are the office vacancy rates right now?  Seems like we have been and are in the middle of building quite a few class A spaces.   Is there a market for more considering what is current and coming available when existing construction projects come online?

[vicupstate]

Anything under construction now will already be leased up by the time the first building at County Square is finished.  

[gvegascple]

28 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

Anything under construction now will already be leased up by the time the first building at County Square is finished.  

I Googled and found that the county has around 8% vacancy and the CBD closer to 18%.   Both rising a teeny bit with rents going down and building prices going up.  Some mentioned that potential tenants even large ones have the luxury of choosing 4 or 5 locations.  I may not have found the most accurate results but I assume they are pretty close.  Someone correct me if I am way off, but this doesnt seem super ideal for new construction.  I want that cool new apple hq-like development for county square badly.  If its the difference between cutting out a few floors from other buildings part of the complex, it makes sense to cut them out in my opinion.  Build the tall ones downtown.  Its a better long term strategy to concentrate workers if you need to develop public transit down the road.  Spreading out tall buildings seems like not a good idea to account for future growth.

Edited December 12, 2019 by gvegascple