Jump to content

SuperTARGET to anchor new Center at I-85 and Pelham

RestedTraveler

By RestedTraveler
in Greenville

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply
wheatie Unincorporated Area

wheatie

Posted
Posted
The people that live near Pelham Road in that area (i.e. Thronblade, etc.) may be demographically more affluent than those that live here in T.R.; however, Wal-Mart realizes that their dollars spend just the same, I'm sure. And people will likely spend their dollars at Wal-Mart, in spite of all of its flawed practices globally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
linkerjpatrick Hamlet

linkerjpatrick

Posted
Posted

Many might be surprised by Travelers Rest. With places like Green Valley, The Cliff's Communities other places you will find a lot of very well to do people in that area. I have a feeling too that a lot of people on the "eastside" may actually be "house-poor" by that I mean they may live in a nice "McMansion" but be in debt up the wazoo. I'm not saying that's alway the case either way but looks can be deceiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gs3 Metropolitan Area

gs3

Posted
Posted
County Council did not "approve a Wal-Mart". As Chickenwing stated, apparently, the property Wal-mart is interested in already has an appropriate commercial zoning. There is little County Council can do about that. It would be illegitimate for Council to just change a property's already designated zoning merely because they didn't like the type of store going in. Zoning changes are requested by the property owner, not council.

The proposed Target project needs a change in zoning in order to build a Target or any "big box" on their property. This is a different situation. The zoning of the Target property is not being rejected because of the Target, but because the land is not suitable for ANY "big box" development. As has been stated earlier, a large part of this property is a flood plain. It is logical that this would make the property unsuitable for the requested use; therefore the zoning change was rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chickenwing Hamlet

Chickenwing

Posted
Posted
Thanks. I understand it overall, though I don't really understand the Council not changing the zoning request for Target. Just across Garlington are many businesses....wouldn't they also be in the flood plain? And I know nothing about site prep, so please explain to me here....couldn't the land be filled and raised so as not to be considered flood plain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wheatie Unincorporated Area

wheatie

Posted
Posted

Not only does filling in the property effect the stream flow, but it increases runoff and decreases infiltration of water into the ground. If water runs directly from a parking lot into a stream, it obviously decreases water quality. It is important for flood plains to remain as flood plains. We need to stop the process of developing within flood plains IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RestedTraveler Metropolis

RestedTraveler

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Not only that, but developers of projects above the flood plains (especially here in the foothills along the escarpment) really need to be more conscious of (and more concerned with) how their changes will impact the flow of runoff and introduce erosion. The property of one of my neighbors backs up to the flood plain (based on 100-years flood data). Due to development of our neighborhood and some less-than-adequate practices by the developer concerning erosion and runoff, he's already seen that 100-years-flood line surpassed six times in five years.

Sorry - I don't mean to vent on this here - we have an entire thread or two dedicated to clear cutting and such. I don't know the laws, but it seems to me that developers don't really seem to give a damn in general or that they're not being given enough "incentive" or "motivation" (read: rules and penalties) to care about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
g-man430 Town

g-man430

Posted
Posted

I saw the pdf file for the big box restrictions, which is no longer valid on the Greenville Planning Commission's website a couple months ago and if it passes, the new big-box retails would look ten times better than the ones built today. All the new big-box retailers would have to include brick, lots of trees, less parking, more mixed-use, etc. The new ones would have looks that would be in resemblance to how the Publix and Staples will look at McBee Station. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wellen Whistle-Stop

wellen

Posted
Posted

Some of the residents of Shannon Lake, a neighborhood just off Garlington Rd, have sent out a flyer 'Call for Action' asking for other residents to show up to tonights council meeting. They think that the current S1 zoning is inappropriate, and that PD would be also. They want it zoned Residential. That made me chuckle. I could see DR Horton's sales pitch now:

'Close to everything! Great views and the soothing sounds of nature. When it rains, half the homes will be lake front!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btoy Town

btoy

Posted
Posted

Residential is absurd, and their is no chance it will ever be residential. PD makes sense becuase it gives the county tons, and I repeat, tons of control in the final design of the project, every aspect will have to be approved and then they would have to have approval for any changes made to that plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btoy Town

btoy

Posted
Posted
I agree and disagree with you on this one. Yes, residential is absurd. But, PD can(should) only be granted with a plan attached --- well, at least that's the way it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, around here PD is often granted, then a project fails to materialize and the property is left lingering in a kind of PD limbo. S-1 is a reasonable zoning for this property and it should stay zoned as such until and unless a reasonable and acceptable plan for development is presented. These people in Shannon Lake are justifiably concerned but, they need some good and informed guidance on the zoning subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
g-man430 Town

g-man430

Posted
Posted
I agree and disagree with you on this one. Yes, residential is absurd. But, PD can(should) only be granted with a plan attached --- well, at least that's the way it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, around here PD is often granted, then a project fails to materialize and the property is left lingering in a kind of PD limbo. S-1 is a reasonable zoning for this property and it should stay zoned as such until and unless a reasonable and acceptable plan for development is presented. These people in Shannon Lake are justifiably concerned but, they need some good and informed guidance on the zoning subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.