Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree in general, but if Google was going to get ahead of themselves it might've been a good idea to at least wait until Future I-587 signs were posted, otherwise someone who is not familiar with the area that blindly follows a GPS is going to wonder where I-587 signs are.
If NCDOT still hasn't put up the Future I-587 signs yet, then I suspect they are wanting to have I-495/Future I-495 decommissioned before doing so, otherwise it would appear that I-587 is branching off of I-495. Future I-87 signs are posted on US-64 east of Rocky Mount, but none west.
Hmmm maybe...although in today's age of GPS maps, your average driver is literally going to blindly follow where Google or Siri is telling them where to go. 90% of drivers are going to take exit 100 if Google tells them to, no matter if the road sign says i-587 or US 264 and they won't question it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil A. Delphia
Not only fees for maintaining the deck, but also the loan payoff to build it. The city had already saved funds specifically to build a parking deck, but at day's end, took out a loan instead. Now we've cut off revenue from the garage and we're paying for another parking study...
The thing is, I don't think anyone would have minded a municipal parking garage, which is basically what we're stuck with for awhile. On this message board I expressed an idea to build one where the Pugh's and the old bus station was, right across from the fire station (Not the quietest neighbor to have, yet apartments will be there now.). Police could have the bottom two floors, and the other 2, 3 floors for all the other city employees (including GUC). Any extra space could be leased to private companies. It would have been a good spot for a municipal garage: City hall, GUC, police and fire all right there, plus the courthouse isn't really any further from there than the one we built. I suppose we could still build one, either where GUC just built a new parking lot, or at 4th & Washington, across from CopyPro, adjacent to the former Jefferson's. The city's got to figure out their own parking situation, as well as everyone else's.
Agree. They should just buy the other half of the block on the Greene Street parking lot beside the courthouse and build a municipal deck for the courthouse. That will free up more space. I'd love for them to get rid of the 5 points parking lot as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancisDrake
The council is hyper sensitive when it comes to decision making. I understand wanting a study to inform your decision, but we study everything multiple times. Its becoming a waste or at least a perception of waste. They need to be cognizant of this fact and prudent with the choice of studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarnetAndBlack
Because when they make decisions, it's bad.
We're in this situation now because they sold their parking lot. Duh. Need parking. Don't get rid of it.
They sold it because they had a backup place to store the vehicles (the parking deck). Overall, it was the right decision. They probably should have found a better place well before selling the lot and only taken half the spots of the parking deck. They own plenty of land in the dickinson area and probably could have found a temporary space for them nearby. I just don't get why this study is needed because previous studies have already called for a deck in the Dickinson area anyway.
Hmmm maybe...although in today's age of GPS maps, your average driver is literally going to blindly follow where Google or Siri is telling them where to go. 90% of drivers are going to take exit 100 if Google tells them to, no matter if the road sign says i-587 or US 264 and they won't question it.
Several heavily contested rezoning requests have prompted Greenville City Council to consider limiting future student housing proposals to areas identified to be best suited for such developments.
The City Council on Monday unanimously approved a motion to direct city staff to identify areas near East Carolina University’s main campus that are more appropriate for developing and maintaining dormitory-style student housing. Staff will develop a proposal that could result in the City Council approving a potential zoning ordinance amendment.
District 3 Councilman McLean Godley made the motion due to recent rezoning requests that have come before the City Council with opposition from neighboring property owners.
During the March 20 City Council meeting, a developer and a group of property owners submitted a rezoning request for an 85-acre piece of farmland off of Charles Boulevard. The developer had plans to construct a mixed-use development that includes offices, single-family homes, townhomes and a 656-bed housing development.
Several neighboring property owners and local developer Tom Taft Sr. spoke against the rezoning, citing concerns that a student housing development off of Charles Boulevard would “oversaturate” Greenville’s student housing market.
Although city staff said the rezoning request was in compliance with the city’s future land use plan and the request won an 8-1 approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 21, the City Council voted 4-3 to deny the rezoning request before agreeing to discuss the proposal again on May 8.
Godley said the city needs to establish guidelines about the construction of student housing developments before more rezoning requests are brought before the City Council.
“It’s starting to get a little embarrassing for the city because we don’t have a clear-cut policy on how we want to go about student housing,” Godley said Monday. “We are kind of picking and choosing as we please right now.”
Godley suggested that city staff identify the best locations for student housing developments and that the Council consider limiting the construction of future student housing developments to those areas.
“We are always going to have student housing requests because we are a community with almost 30,000 students,” Godley said. “Conventional wisdom says that the closer student housing is to campus the more successful it will be. ... I think it’s time for us to develop a plan to narrow that scope down a bit.”
District 5 Councilman P.J. Connelly said that determining a plan for student housing development would give investors an idea of whether to proceed with plans for a development if it is in an area that has been identified as not being suitable for student housing.
“If we don’t set up guidelines we are going to have the same issue we had last month,” Connelly said. “A developer is in full compliance with the future land use plan and the Council shoots them down. ... That does not send a good message.”
Councilman At-Large Calvin Mercer suggested that city staff could include recommendations to developers that include:
• Requiring that future developments have a certain percentage of units that are not designed for student housing;
• Encouraging street-level retail space like the ones at The Boundary@West End;
• Requiring bike racks and sidewalks to encourage residents to use alternative transportation;
• Requiring a certain amount of feet between student housing and single-family residents.
“I think these suggestions could address some of the issues with student housing,” Mercer said.
Mayor Allen Thomas said guidelines also would assist developers with selecting projects in the future.
“All the development community wants from us is clear direction,” Thomas said. “We need to get to work on developing a plan.”
Easy fix for this, developers will simply state that their development is for "market-rate" housing instead of "student" housing, like the other 50 apartment complexes within a 5 mile radius of ECU do. Then they can market the development towards "students" if they please.
This is getting silly. They're trying to fix something that isn't broken. And they're going to break it in the process.
Easy fix for this, developers will simply state that their development is for "market-rate" housing instead of "student" housing, like the other 50 apartment complexes within a 5 mile radius of ECU do. Then they can market the development towards "students" if they please.
This is getting silly. They're trying to fix something that isn't broken. And they're going to break it in the process.
Yes and no. They need a policy to direct the decisions they make otherwise, as mentioned in the article, they look silly picking and choosing projects off-the-hip. In actuality, I'm sure some developers will bait and switch but that is on them and they are not city leaders. It is better that the city look planned and prepared than the developer(s).
DOT was out in full force today putting up Future I-587 signs down both sides of 264
Cool!
I'm surprised NCDOT didn't wait until I-495 was canned, but I'm not complaining. This could also be a sign (no pun intended) that I-495 may be decommissioned during AASHTO's spring meeting in May.
We drove to CLT this weekend and I noticed a few sign poles on 264 that had been set, but signs not mounted on them yet. Must have been for the future 587 signs.
Kind of funny how the parking and student housing issues are related....and a good problem to have.
For one...the approval of the three housing complexes downtown were exactly the right thing to do...and the City encouraging it by closing off streets and/or selling parking lots is what they should be doing. These projects when complete will transform downtown Greenville, including the Dickinson Avenue corridor. What you need is people...and in a 10 year period you will go from a few parking lots and some old buildings and empty sidewalks to a completely transformed City Center with designated parking, lots of people on the street and the reuse of old buildings. Couple that with the finally completed 10th St connector and it will be one of the finest college towns in the country.
The Council will figure out the parking issue and build another deck for its vehicles and return the old deck to more public use. I agree with the removal of Five Points parking...it should be an urban green space that connects 5th St and the Dickinson Ave corridor within downtown. This should be part of the parking study...to turn Five Points Parking into Five Points Park.
In terms of the Student housing...I don't have a problem with them revising the Charles Blvd project to more single family...it is a rezoning request after all...but I have a problem with the idea of limiting student housing IN A COLLEGE TOWN. If the market is there to finance and build student housing, then let them build it....just designate zoning for it. The replacement of College View is underway, the renovation of the building on Charles Blvd near 11th St is underway...This is what we want, renovation and revitalization, especially near the City Core.
US-264 East, just past the NC-97 interchange in Zebulon. Pic taken by AARoads forum member Adam Prince.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
