Jump to content

1015 S Main Street mixed use development


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I guess I’ll start the thread. News story:  https://www.postandcourier.com/greenville/business/greenvilles-west-end-community-center-site-pitched-for-mixed-use-development/article_ec4b3fd0-9193-1

The number of apartments is not 100% certain,  it could be as high as 275.  The developer is interested in getting local tenants  included in the retail space, and is pricing lease rates to encourage

While I agree this is puzzling that the applicant is proceeding at this point, I feel staff is holding this project to a much higher standard than many others. More than a few of these 'standards'  ar

Posted Images

Posted (edited)

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval is contingent upon building architecture approval. The DRB maintains the right to require minor site plan modifications that may result from review of the final building design.
2. Applicant is to work with staff and conduct an informal review by a 2-Member DRB Committee for the design specifics of the alleyway.
3. A landscape plan, completed by a licensed landscape architect, must be submitted for architectural review approval.
4. The 5th story of Building B should maintain a 20-foot step back from the façade wall of the first four (4) floors to maintain appropriate massing to adjacent structures.
5. A second loading and delivery zone should be provided on the southern end of the alleyway in order to provide enough space for moving and delivery trucks and to prevent any blockage of the alley’s travel lanes.
6. The northern portion of Building B and the private courtyard between Buildings A and B shall be flipped as a mirrored image to allow the courtyard to be adjacent to the alley.
7. A new Traffic Analysis Form shall be submitted for review to the Traffic Engineer at the same time as the architecture review.
8. This CA is considered a specific site development plan. As such, the CA issued for this project shall be subject to Land Management Ordinance Section 19-2.2.14 Lapse of approval/vested rights and the Vested Rights Act, Article 11, of Chapter 29, Title 6, of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (S.C. Code §§ 6-29-1510 et seq.). The CA shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of approval by the Board. The Vested Right shall be granted up to five annual extensions upon a written request for an extension that must be received from the applicant at least sixty (60) days before expiration, unless any change or amendment to the land development ordinance or regulations of the City of Greenville’s Code of Ordinances were to be amended that would no longer allow execution of the site specific development plan. At any time during the two-year period or any subsequent Vested Rights extensions, the applicant may be granted a building permit from the City Building Official. Should the CA expire at any time prior to the application for a building permit, such permit shall not be issued until a current CA is provided.

Edited by gman430
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2021 at 4:28 PM, gman430 said:

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval is contingent upon building architecture approval. The DRB maintains the right to require minor site plan modifications that may result from review of the final building design.
2. Applicant is to work with staff and conduct an informal review by a 2-Member DRB Committee for the design specifics of the alleyway.
3. A landscape plan, completed by a licensed landscape architect, must be submitted for architectural review approval.
4. The 5th story of Building B should maintain a 20-foot step back from the façade wall of the first four (4) floors to maintain appropriate massing to adjacent structures.
5. A second loading and delivery zone should be provided on the southern end of the alleyway in order to provide enough space for moving and delivery trucks and to prevent any blockage of the alley’s travel lanes.
6. The northern portion of Building B and the private courtyard between Buildings A and B shall be flipped as a mirrored image to allow the courtyard to be adjacent to the alley.
7. A new Traffic Analysis Form shall be submitted for review to the Traffic Engineer at the same time as the architecture review.
8. This CA is considered a specific site development plan. As such, the CA issued for this project shall be subject to Land Management Ordinance Section 19-2.2.14 Lapse of approval/vested rights and the Vested Rights Act, Article 11, of Chapter 29, Title 6, of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (S.C. Code §§ 6-29-1510 et seq.). The CA shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of approval by the Board. The Vested Right shall be granted up to five annual extensions upon a written request for an extension that must be received from the applicant at least sixty (60) days before expiration, unless any change or amendment to the land development ordinance or regulations of the City of Greenville’s Code of Ordinances were to be amended that would no longer allow execution of the site specific development plan. At any time during the two-year period or any subsequent Vested Rights extensions, the applicant may be granted a building permit from the City Building Official. Should the CA expire at any time prior to the application for a building permit, such permit shall not be issued until a current CA is provided.

Site Plan/Massing plans approved with the above conditions but modifications to #4,5,6.

4. Can reduce setback to less than 20' but must show cause

5.  Not required to provide 2nd loading zone if one location can adequately serve both buildings

6. Courtyard is NOT required to be flipped provided landscaping plan is satisfactory to 'urban landscaping'.

Architectural plans will go to board tentatively for September's meeting. 

The architectural plans will be presented at a Community Meeting at the West End Community Center on July 19th.  

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the seasonal nature of baseball, this spot is pretty exciting for retail.  We could use more retail downtown to balance all the restaurants, bars, coffee shops and ice cream places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gvegascple said:

Other than the seasonal nature of baseball, this spot is pretty exciting for retail.  We could use more retail downtown to balance all the restaurants, bars, coffee shops and ice cream places.

Yeah. Just like how many of the retail spaces have been filled at the Homewood Suites directly across the street. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gman430 said:

Yeah. Just like how many of the retail spaces have been filled at the Homewood Suites directly across the street. :rolleyes:

Good point.  Maybe Covid played a factor? I think its weird that spot is empty. I was wondering if its supposed to be  restaurant to compliment the hotel and opening a restaurant is tricky now with labor shortages.  There was supposed to a restaurant in the old McDonalds building (now Cargo/TreheI) and that is stalled too.  I am still optimistic for more retail, maybe not another expensive women's boutique though so retail, just not upscale womens boutique, ice cream or coffee.  I am starting to sound like Steve Martin now, "all I need is this paddleball set, just this paddleball set, that's all I need...."Oh I need THIS...." 

Edited by gvegascple
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

15 hours ago, vicupstate said:

1015 S. Main St. Revised

Architecture is much worse, IMO.  

 

 

This is next to 1021. I wish Stone would just sell Sun Cap their property.

1021 S. Main St.

That really is quite meh... Architecture just really isn't Greenville's strong suit, which is a shame.  Greenville can't outdo Asheville with the flashy, authentic historic architecture but there's no reason it couldn't either pursue really dazzling modern architecture, or take a page from Spartanburg's book and build a lot of high-quality neo-traditional architecture.  Anything is better than this growing collection of "Charlotte Boring"-style beige boxes.  What really sucks is that the quality of Greenville's public spaces is the best in the region by far, but it just won't take it over the top with high-quality architecture too.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hauntedheadnc said:

That really is quite meh... Architecture just really isn't Greenville's strong suit, which is a shame.  Greenville can't outdo Asheville with the flashy, authentic historic architecture but there's no reason it couldn't either pursue really dazzling modern architecture, or take a page from Spartanburg's book and build a lot of high-quality neo-traditional architecture.  Anything is better than this growing collection of "Charlotte Boring"-style beige boxes.  What really sucks is that the quality of Greenville's public spaces is the best in the region by far, but it just won't take it over the top with high-quality architecture too.

But neither of those are building as much as Greenville is other than Charlotte. I'm just glad we're building.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, motonenterprises said:

But neither of those are building as much as Greenville is other than Charlotte. I'm just glad we're building.

Why?  Growth for its own sake is just cancer.  Greenville is desirable enough that it should be able to exercise some clout and get something of better quality than a bunch of ugly boxes.   I mean, look at Charlotte, since we're trying so hard to look like them: Charlotte is far and away the most mediocre large city in America.  It's a bunch of glass boxes and beige EIFS.  Why should that be any model to follow?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the new layout and massing of the building, but the architecture is definitely disappointing. They really need to channel the industrial feel of the westend more. Something like the architecture of the Canvas building  (across from BBT) would  work fantastically in the WestEnd...make it look like it's been there for a century. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hauntedheadnc said:

Why?  Growth for its own sake is just cancer.  Greenville is desirable enough that it should be able to exercise some clout and get something of better quality than a bunch of ugly boxes.   I mean, look at Charlotte, since we're trying so hard to look like them: Charlotte is far and away the most mediocre large city in America.  It's a bunch of glass boxes and beige EIFS.  Why should that be any model to follow?

Well. That's why we have different cities to choose from. I like what's going on in Greenville. Would like to see something taller than the current tallest though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hauntedheadnc said:

That really is quite meh... Architecture just really isn't Greenville's strong suit, which is a shame.  Greenville can't outdo Asheville with the flashy, authentic historic architecture but there's no reason it couldn't either pursue really dazzling modern architecture, or take a page from Spartanburg's book and build a lot of high-quality neo-traditional architecture.  Anything is better than this growing collection of "Charlotte Boring"-style beige boxes.  What really sucks is that the quality of Greenville's public spaces is the best in the region by far, but it just won't take it over the top with high-quality architecture too.

I agree it's pretty "meh," yet I think it is better than many of the other ones (low bar) around town, at least it's not just a shoebox. :w00t:

44 minutes ago, motonenterprises said:

Well. That's why we have different cities to choose from. I like what's going on in Greenville. Would like to see something taller than the current tallest though.

We might as well face it, we'll be calling that brutalist eyesore our tallest forever. :cry::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, distortedlogic said:

I agree it's pretty "meh," yet I think it is better than many of the other ones (low bar) around town, at least it's not just a shoebox. :w00t:

We might as well face it, we'll be calling that brutalist eyesore our tallest forever. :cry::lol:

I think eventually they'll break that ceiling. I also think this building will eventually get a facelift.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.