Rhett Street mixed use development with hotel.

[GvilleSC]

21 hours ago, vicupstate said:

There is a Developer led community meeting on this project at 6:00 pm today at Unity Park Welcome Center. This is a chance to have input before things get too far down the road.  

Did anyone attend or have a sense of the community feedback?

[vicupstate]

1 hour ago, GvilleSC said:

Did anyone attend or have a sense of the community feedback?

I did. The mass and scale is the big issue from nearby residents.    Not  sure there is much that can be done about it.    Other than that, there aren't many complaints.

[Horatio Nelson]

32 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

I did. The mass and scale is the big issue from nearby residents.    Not  sure there is much that can be done about it.    Other than that, there aren't many complaints.

Complaining about a building being too big in the part of downtown (West End)  zoned for the densest development seems odd to me. It's going to be a big building surrounded by other big buildings. 

[vicupstate]

319 Rhett Application with staff comments

Staff approves with conditions. The primary one seems to be either an actual or visual setback starting above the 5th floor. 

[gman430]

Anybody know if the DRB approved this today? 

[vicupstate]

2 hours ago, gman430 said:

Anybody know if the DRB approved this today? 

They took a vote that was 4-0 but I couldn't hear what the motion was. If I had to guess, it was to defer it. 

[gman430]

10 hours ago, vicupstate said:

They took a vote that was 4-0 but I couldn't hear what the motion was. If I had to guess, it was to defer it. 

It was indeed deferred until the December DRB meeting according to the Post & Courier so the architects can make the recommended staff changes to the project which have been described as significant. The DRB is asking the developers to set back three sides of the project 20 feet. The biggest concern from area residents and stakeholders is the size and scale of the project. 

Edited October 7, 2022 by gman430

[apaladin]

I really don’t get the residents concerns! 

[gman430]

Surveying and soil bore testing now occurring on site. 

[vicupstate]

319 Rhett St mixed use  Hotel and Apartments

Definitely an improvement, but may not be sufficient for the 'scale' and 'massing' opponents. 

[GVLover]

2 hours ago, vicupstate said:

319 Rhett St mixed use  Hotel and Apartments

Definitely an improvement, but may not be sufficient for the 'scale' and 'massing' opponents. 

The portion of the development that fronts Main Street would be awesome if it were a Restoration Hardware, but I imagine we have some time until we can support such a store. 

 

—Below are Restoration Hardware locations—

Edited November 16, 2022 by GVLover

[GVLer]

Where did those last 2 pics come from? I do not see those renderings on the application?

[motonenterprises]

Looks good.

[GVLover]

1 hour ago, GVLer said:

Where did those last 2 pics come from? I do not see those renderings on the application?

Sorry, I should’ve clarified that the last two pictures are a “Restoration Hardware” gallery — I posted them just to show that the Main St portion of the development would be perfect for such a store/gallery. 

[apaladin]

So what’s next for this project to move forward? 

[vicupstate]

9 hours ago, apaladin said:

So what’s next for this project to move forward? 

To win DRB approval on Dec. 1

[gman430]

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. Building height shall be reduced to 10 floors maximum, noting the current design of 11 stories over O Neal. Basically the glass portion that sticks above the rest of the building on the O Neal Street side as you see in the below pic is what the staff wants removed. 108 feet tall is the height of the proposed building with this feature removed: 

2. Pool shall be removed or obscured from the Main Street facing section of the structure.

3. The windowless tower facing Main Street shall be better detailed with brick, lighting, artwork, or other materials, to be reviewed and approved by staff and two DRB members prior to final approval of the CA.

4. The façade at the pedestrian level on Oneal shall require better defined pedestrian- friendly design and materials, to be reviewed and approved by staff and two DRB members prior to final approval of the CA.

5. The applicant shall provide articulation of the alley, to be reviewed and approved by staff and two DRB members prior to final approval of the CA.

6. The applicant shall provide a scaled mockup to showcase how the materials and colors will relate to one another to be reviewed and approved by staff and two DRB members prior to final approval of the CA.

7. The main street façade shall require a separate CA once future tenant is determined and any façade changes are introduced.

8. Detailed drawings must be submitted for a separate CA for outdoor dining areas and other elements planned within the building transition zone.

9. Trash and recycling receptacles shall be installed near areas of high pedestrian traffic.

10. Tenant trash collection shall be appropriately screened on site and methods of removal shall be approved by staff during the site permit review.

11. Hotel drop off and move-in / move-out procedures shall occur on site.

12. The applicant shall work with Planning and Engineering staff for final streetscape and right-of-way improvements, prior to permit issuance, to include the installation of new streetlights, pedestrian lighting, and bulb-outs at parallel parking areas for enhanced pedestrian safety on all streets surrounding the development.

13. While this application shall serve for general signage size and location approval, individual CAs shall be submitted to staff for review and approval for individual sign permits.

14. Applicant shall work with the Arts in Public Places Commission for approval of any public art or mural prior to installation.

15. Applicant shall maintain a safe and designated pedestrian connection along rights- of-way during the construction process.

16. Per the recent Section 19-1.11 LMO Text Amendment, an Affidavit of Substantial Compliance must be signed and notarized by the property owner prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Conformity.

17. This CA is considered part of 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 November 23, 2022 by gman430

[apaladin]

Outside of all this, they like it. It has no chance with all this nitpicking, the height reduction is just downright hilarious. What in the world does that matter? 

Edited November 24, 2022 by apaladin

[gman430]

The DRB voted 5-0 to defer it to the January meeting to address the pedestrian realm (width of  sidewalks) and the elevator/stair tower behind Otto. They want to see the sidewalks be wider than six feet and they want the elevator/stair tower to have architectural elements so it’s not one large blank face. They seemed to like everything else about the project including the pool and the height. They didn’t feel there was a need to move or eliminate the pool along with lowering the project height along O Neal Street. 

There was some concern about traffic also. The city is currently doing a traffic study on the project as required which the DRB wants to see when complete.

Edited December 1, 2022 by gman430

[gman430]

There were six to seven people who spoke out against the project with at least half of them living at the Rhett Street Brownstones. Oddly enough, nobody living at 400 Rhett Street or Custom House spoke out against it. The Urban League actually had one of their lead people show up and speak in favor of the project. A few of the DRB members felt like some of the residents concerns had nothing to do with their commission like with traffic and wastewater. They felt like that those issues would be better handled by the SCDOT and city. Even with that, they still want to see what the traffic study shows and if any road improvements need to be made around the development. The city currently has a RFP out for a new and expanded sewer system along Rhett Street which will be complete before this project is so that will take care of the wastewater issue which is currently at zero capacity in that area. There was also some discussion among the DRB members to actually make the buildings taller so a wider sidewalk could be implemented. I doubt that will happen though due to the architect stating that they can fix the sidewalk issue without raising or lowering the height of the buildings. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

Sounds like reasonable opinion and action will prevail. 

I find it interesting that the West End continues to become heavily residential. I'm sure parking has a lot to do with keeping the bulk of downtown office space in the city center. 

[gman430]

Height stays the same at 120 feet tall: 

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/10238?fileID=56704

Edited December 21, 2022 by gman430

[GVLover]

Rooftop restaurant planned in downtown Greenville atop hotel, apartments

https://www.postandcourier.com/greenville/business/rooftop-restaurant-planned-in-downtown-greenville-atop-hotel-apartments/article_b14b9560-86ec-11ed-9109-ab873569032b.html

 

 

[gman430]

Don’t worry about #1. The full DRB already said they were okay with the current height. 

Summary:
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. 

1. Building height shall be reduced to 10 floors maximum, noting the current design of 11-stories over a portion of Oneal.

2. The applicant shall provide a scaled mockup to showcase how the materials and colors will relate to one another to be reviewed and approved by staff and two DRB members prior to final approval of the CA.

3. The main street façade shall require a separate CA once future tenant is determined if any façade changes are introduced.

4. Detailed drawings shall be submitted for a separate CA for outdoor dining areas and other elements planned within the hotel’s transition zone.

5. Trash and recycling receptacles shall be installed near areas of high pedestrian traffic.

6. The applicant shall work together with the neighboring Custom House property owners to implement a coordinated strategy for trash collection in order to facilitate disposal and to avoid locating trash receptacles within the public alley or right of way, in compliance with PUB 7.1.

7. The applicant shall work with Planning and Engineering staff for final streetscape and right-of-way improvements, prior to permit issuance, to include the installation of new streetlights, pedestrian lighting, and bulb-outs at parallel parking areas for enhanced pedestrian safety on all streets surrounding the development.

8. While this application shall serve for general signage size and location approval, individual CAs shall be submitted to staff for review and approval for individual sign permits.

9. Applicant shall work with the Arts in Public Places Commission for approval of any public art or mural prior to installation.

10. Applicant shall maintain a safe and designated pedestrian connection along rights- of-way during the construction process.

11. Per the recent Section 19-1.11 LMO Text Amendment, an Affidavit of Substantial Compliance must be signed and notarized by the property owner prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Conformity.

12. This CA is considered part of 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.

[gman430]

Four people spoke out against project. Less than last time. Still a lot residents here against it though and definitely takes up the vast majority of them in the crowd. Project deferred by DRB until April. Still major issues among the board with massing, setbacks, pedestrian realm, etc. They seem be mostly okay with the height. Developer and architect will work with two members of the board during this break time to try and work out the issues. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by gman430