Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Skyliner

Zoning Changes in Greenville

Recommended Posts

I read the article in today's Greenville News about the proposed zoning changes coming to the city, and noticed a couple of interesting things on the map. Why does the Roper Mountain Science Center have the zoning designation of, "PD, planned development?" Something in the works perhalps? I also noticed that Villagio Verde has the same designation, of course, as does many of the community revitalizations we already know of. If you spot anything else of note, please let us know. :)

Read Full Article Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Having dealt with Zoning in other cities, PUD stands for Planned Unit Development. It simply refers to the type of Zoning. PUD zoning is often used when the other zoning classifciations (such as Commercial, Residential, etc.) don't fully apply or fit. It does not mean that new development is planned for the site in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PD (Planned Development) in this case seems to show every location that we've discussed about new developments about to take place. It is only designated to those areas where plans for development are submitted. If anyone can help clear up this issue, please do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for the comment is that I was expecting the Science Center would be designated as "OI, Office & Institutional." This is the classification given to every other similar property in the City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT also includes some things that a bad ideas, will just drive up costs.

Like it bans metal siding, even in the service districts. I can understand banning it say for a strip mall, but a warehouse in a area full of warehouses? That is crazy, also it requires sidewalks in service districts. To summerize a colleauge, the only person to use sidewalks in a service district are the people robbing the places"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that it's a great step for the city to take. No siding will be nice and not an eye-sore and sidewalks in service districts... why not promote pedestrian friendly areas? It will connect areas that aren't service districts and allow the walkability that a lot of areas lack today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that it's a great step for the city to take. No siding will be nice and not an eye-sore and sidewalks in service districts... why not promote pedestrian friendly areas? It will connect areas that aren't service districts and allow the walkability that a lot of areas lack today.

I'll tell you why. It is not affordable, most owners in these districts are building buildings that are to be useful not good looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you why. It is not affordable, most owners in these districts are building buildings that are to be useful not good looking.

All of the old warehouses that are being converted to lofts across the country were built primarily to be functional. The fact that owners actually took pride in them did not in any way diminish there usefulness. Today, our cities are being filled with cheap, disposable architecture. I don't think that you can discount aesthetics in any type of building.

I also am a big proponent of making all parts of the city pedestrian friendly. In industrial areas, many lower income people have no other choice but to walk to work. Giving them a safe way to get there is, in my opinion, a good thing. The comment about crime is the same kind of statement that people made about service alleys in the middle of the last century. In reality, people out and about are the best deterrent to crime. Sidewalks would most likely help to deter theft rather than contribute to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point, JCT. I have talked with many transplant residents from the north who have said that there just aren't enough sidewalks in Greenville. I have been to many places in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, etc, and I can definitely understand their reasoning. They can walk everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PD (Planned Development) in this case seems to show every location that we've discussed about new developments about to take place. It is only designated to those areas where plans for development are submitted. If anyone can help clear up this issue, please do. :)

It is a zoning classification that is supposed to promote innovate design and layout, such as mixed uses and clustering. That is the intent anyway.

Development in a PD area is subject to a site plan review before the Planning Commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that information, Ness. Welcome to UP! Great to know that many others read these discussions and want to give input. That is exactly what we need. :thumbsup:

So I wonder why Roper Mountain Science Center would have been given this designation? I like the thought, but am not sure what it could mean. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the old warehouses that are being converted to lofts across the country were built primarily to be functional. The fact that owners actually took pride in them did not in any way diminish there usefulness. Today, our cities are being filled with cheap, disposable architecture. I don't think that you can discount aesthetics in any type of building.

I also am a big proponent of making all parts of the city pedestrian friendly. In industrial areas, many lower income people have no other choice but to walk to work. Giving them a safe way to get there is, in my opinion, a good thing. The comment about crime is the same kind of statement that people made about service alleys in the middle of the last century. In reality, people out and about are the best deterrent to crime. Sidewalks would most likely help to deter theft rather than contribute to it.

Great comments JCT! :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the old warehouses that are being converted to lofts across the country were built primarily to be functional. The fact that owners actually took pride in them did not in any way diminish there usefulness. Today, our cities are being filled with cheap, disposable architecture. I don't think that you can discount aesthetics in any type of building.

I also am a big proponent of making all parts of the city pedestrian friendly. In industrial areas, many lower income people have no other choice but to walk to work. Giving them a safe way to get there is, in my opinion, a good thing. The comment about crime is the same kind of statement that people made about service alleys in the middle of the last century. In reality, people out and about are the best deterrent to crime. Sidewalks would most likely help to deter theft rather than contribute to it.

As gsupstate says, Great Comments, JCT. :thumbsup:

I agree. As far as I'm concerned, there is no use for "disposable architecture" within the city limits.

Although one could argue that the old wood-framed buildings built back when alot of the brick buildings were built were probably considered "disposable" as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of rezonings -- The central business district designation was recently extended south to Markley in the West End. Should be interesting to see the implications of this (if any).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very interesting, Ness ... it includes the ballpark and the proposed Fieldhouse development between the ballpark and South Main Street. It will definitely be interesting to see if this designation helps encourage further development in the West End (as if any further impetus were actually needed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.