Greater Spartanburg Projects & Developments

[hub-city]

QT is coming to the service station area, but there could be more....

[westsider28]

That's an interesting possibility.  Bass Pro owns 74 acres where TrueTimber is (whose gear BPS sells in their stores), which the article says is for TrueTimber expansion.  But I just checked GIS, and found that BPS owns an additional 84 acres adjacent to the 74-acre TrueTimber site.  So BPS owns over 150 acres on the southwest corner of I-26 and Hwy-176.  Certainly seems like it could be a possible store location. (educated speculation; I have no inside info)

[Historyguy]

Tonight, the City Planning Commission heard a request from a developer to rezone two properties at 133 and 135 Avant Street, just off the north side of East Main, near Converse.  The request was to rezone from LOD to R-6 (General Residential District) so that the developer can build a small group of 7 townhouses on the spot.  The land is currently vacant and has been for some time.  

The developer indicated that the townhomes would be about 1550 square feet, 3 bedroom and 2 1/2 bath homes, with garages.  The three bedrooms and 2 baths would be on the upper floor, with a half-bath on the ground floor.  He said he had not determined a price, but they will be market-priced homes.  

The zoning needed to be R-6 to meet the density requirements.  No one spoke for or against it.  

The planning commissioners believed this would be in harmony with what's around it - there's a similar cluster across Avant Street from the proposed development, and most of the street is zoned Limited Office or R-8, but it's primarily residential.  The vote was unanimous to recommend the zoning change to City Council.  

And personally, I strongly believe that we need this type of residential infill in the core of the city and surrounding neighborhoods.  With annexation being so difficult, we need more people living in the city, and people have shown they want to live close to downtown.  The more places we can find to build moderately-priced residential options within a few minutes of or in downtown, the better.  And the developer is from the area, though not in the city - so I think it's great that he wanted to build this in the city.  

Besides, 7 1500 square foot homes would have to add something in the neighborhood of a million dollars to the city's tax rolls.  

 

[Spartan]

I agree 100% with all of that. I also think we need more of the "in between" residential options in terms of density. Townhomes like that, along with duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, etc used to be fairly common but for some reason they stopped being built. They are a great way to add a little bit of density within neighborhoods in a way that is affordable while not being obtrusive and not at the scale of apartment complexes.

[westsider28]

Not the greatest looking things in the world.  I wish the City would require the garages / all the parking in the back.  Especially since the developers say they have "plenty of parking, actually more than we need."  At the very least, make the sidewalk level and make the driveways bump up.  All those curb cuts are awful for pedestrians.

Edited January 21, 2017 by westsider28
Added pic

[Historyguy]

As I understand it, these won't face Avant Street - they will be perpendicular on a new street they'll cut in - Main Street will be one lot behind the buildings.  So there won't be lots of foot traffic passing through the new street.  

I actually don't know what the front setback requirements are in R-6 - while some of the new downtown code setbacks are lower - or zero - having them at the front of their lots might not be possible.  But I hear you.  

[westsider28]

Okay, I see.  So kind of like the existing townhomes across Avant?  I guess that's better.  In that case, I'd be interested in seeing what the end that actually fronts Avant looks like, rather than this view from the parking lot / private street.  Looking at GIS, I also noticed there is a public alley ROW between the two lots the developer owns and the gas station. Not sure if that's involved.

[Spartan]

Does the DRB get to review this one? IMO, that would resolve a lot of the design issues. I think that it would be better for the neighborhood if the townhomes faced the street. The lot appears to be fairly narrow so it would result in the need for a second row in order to maintain the same number of units. 

[westsider28]

I believe the DRB only has jurisdiction within the Urban Code boundaries, which this property is well outside of. 

It wouldn't be a bad idea to expand the boundaries over time, maybe to the whole City eventually. (It's already been expanded into the Northside)

[Historyguy]

Correct- it's outside the DRB's jurisdiction.  It does require a zoning change from LOD to R-6, which is what the Planning Commission had to decide on.  

I think the townhomes on the other side of Avant Street also are perpendicular to the street.  

[Spartan]

19 hours ago, westsider28 said:

I believe the DRB only has jurisdiction within the Urban Code boundaries, which this property is well outside of. 

It wouldn't be a bad idea to expand the boundaries over time, maybe to the whole City eventually. (It's already been expanded into the Northside)

I generally agree with this statement, though it would have to exclude non-attached single-family residential. I think most residents would take issue with the City having that much control over the deign of people's houses. It would be bad PR for a board that is generally a good and necessary thing.

[Historyguy]

I agree as well, though I do not think DRB has mandatory review outside of DT-6.  The Planning Commission and Council created a new DT-3 when the Northside was incorporated into the urban code, and the more traditional neighborhoods got the DT-3, with DT-4 being a "general urban zone" or neighborhoods surrounding and integral to the downtown, and DT-5 being an "urban center zone" - and DT-6 being Urban Core.  

The Downtown Code says this as to the DRB's powers:   To make final determinations on the compliance of all new construction applications in DT-6, along those frontages designated as Required Shopfront (Section 4.2), and for all lots 2 acres or greater.

I asked that very question when the Planning Commission was considering adding the Northside - would this give DRB review over every construction project - and was told No.  

[Spartan]

That's good to know. It explains why some project are able to get approvals without corrections from the DRB. I wish ALL areas designated DT-6 and DT-5 would be included in that review process, regardless of where they are or the size of the parcel.

[westsider28]

Several public and private entities are working to beautify Business 85.  Rusted, tangled chain-link fence will be replaced with black vinyl-coated fence, and landscaping will be added.  Good to see this.  Business 85 has been neglected for a long time.  There are a lot of opportunities for infill industrial development along the corridor.

[westsider28]

The 114-year-old Converse Mill (on Hwy 29 several miles east of town) is being renovated into 173 loft apartments!  The unique thing about this one is its scenic location on the Pacolet River.  The project should start in 3 months and be finished late-2018 or early-2019.

This is basically Spartanburg's last remaining textile mill to be renovated.  It's a shame so many burned or were torn down.

[westsider28]

Anderson's Mill will finally be restored!  The Tyger River Foundation has been working on this (fundraising, etc) since 2010.  The project will start in early 2018, and the whole thing will take about 2 years to complete.  The mill was originally built in 1762 and was where Spartanburg County was formed in 1785.  This will be a great tourist attraction.

[djh1963]

Anyone know whats up with the Starbucks on Pine Street? Have they closed or just being remodeled?

[LifeLongBurg]

Anyone know whats up with the Starbucks on Pine Street? Have they closed or just being remodeled?

Remodel - were supposed to be opened by the 15th. Looks like they are pretty close. Should be any day now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spartanburg Dude]

On 5/10/2017 at 10:52 PM, westsider28 said:

The 114-year-old Converse Mill (on Hwy 29 several miles east of town) is being renovated into 173 loft apartments!  The unique thing about this one is its scenic location on the Pacolet River.  The project should start in 3 months and be finished late-2018 or early-2019.

This is basically Spartanburg's last remaining textile mill to be renovated.  It's a shame so many burned or were torn down.

Does anyone know if there is any news with this project?

[roads-scholar]

48 minutes ago, Spartanburg Dude said:

Does anyone know if there is any news with this project?

I was in Inman the other day and noticed workers were gutting the old Inman Mills plant.  A couple of years ago I heard that facility was going to be repurposed into apartments / condos.  It appears something is happening there too. 

 

 

[Spartanburg Dude]

On 9/22/2017 at 2:36 PM, roads-scholar said:

I was in Inman the other day and noticed workers were gutting the old Inman Mills plant.  A couple of years ago I heard that facility was going to be repurposed into apartments / condos.  It appears something is happening there too. 

 

 

That's exciting! That is a huge building with so much potential! I hope that they do it justice as was done with Drayton Mill!

[westsider28]

There was a notice in the paper today about the January 18 Planning Commission meeting, where the owners of 2 parcels at the corner of Vanderbilt and Baltimore (wooded triangle here) want to re-zone from R-6 (residential) and LOD (office) to DT-4 for a mixed-use, mixed-income project.  This is particularly interesting, because this would potentially be an outlier as the first area to be zoned DT-4 that's non-contiguous with the rest of the Urban Code boundaries (downtown vicinity and Northside).  And DT-4 subjects them to urban form requirements and presumably DRB review.  But it's also exciting that a project that would fit those requirements may be developed in this location.

[Historyguy]

As it turns out, the developer decided to amend his request, so this will be proposed for R-6 instead of DT-4.  So the Planning Commission will consider changing the smaller triangle that is LOD into R-6 to match the rest of the property.  

[westsider28]

Bummer.  What exactly does R-6 allow?  Multi-family?  Any limit on number of units?

[roads-scholar]

On 9/25/2017 at 3:23 PM, Spartanburg Dude said:

That's exciting! That is a huge building with so much potential! I hope that they do it justice as was done with Drayton Mill!

Under the radar is the Inman Mill renovation.   There’s a ton of construction going on there.  Should be a great addition to the Inman community.