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 think they are nice, and there's nothing really else in the area in terms of art. I agree that there is essentially no sitting area and grass could be maintained more regularly. There's a lot more than just pigs and horses, though.
I do agree with your points on monopolization. There should be more art, from more artists, throughout uptown. Thinking about it more, if the artist would like to maintain the zoo, he could try and find a private lot elsewhere. I'm not sure if he has an agreement with the city or is leasing that land - I have a feeling he just puts them there.
Regarding how’s he able to place his art there, I’ve always felt he just placed them there as well. At one of time the artist and I basically lived in the same building, and I’d see him working on them everyday, but never thought to ask him about the permit/permission aspects of how he’s able to place his art wherever. If both of our suspicions are true regarding him being able to just place them there, then I’d like to make a comparison to the most recent parking study commissioned by the city and how it recommended stricter guidelines in respect to parking. He, nor any other artist, should be allowed to just place there art wherever. I want to encourage more artists to come out in our city, and build a community for them, but with public approval.
Again, I do think you caught on to something though regarding this being a hidden gem. The city, or a private entity, should scout out a lot where artists can display their art. The “park” (maybe it’s considered a walkthrough?) on Evans St, with the hammocks and what not, would’ve been perfect for an art square.
Keep in mind you have a Historic Tobacco Warehouse district along 10th St that will limit your options AND the Hotel would have the build its own parking (which makes it more costly).
If the Hotel could take advantage of a City owned parking deck on the Imperial site AND the city was offering incentives for a hotel to locate there, with the development schedule outlined previously, you could have a hotel on the area closest to Dickinson Ave of that site by late 2020, which is on the early end of this site being developed anyway. As someone else mentioned the Imperial site is big enough to develop in phases anyway. The site plans proposed all had surface parking lots, which is just ridiculous for real downtown development being fostered by the City (especially when you consider the bus station will be next door). A shared parking deck for a hotel, office building and local patrons is a no-brainer and can be financed by the City unless a particular hotel chain is trying to have a monopoly on the downtown area, which we saw in Wilmington with their Convention Center hotel, when a lawsuit delayed a new hotel for years (Its an Embassy Suites). In that case it was also the Hilton chain, that BTW is tied to the City's existing convention center and now, to ECU's Alumni center.
I have not yet had a change to review the proposals but I agree with your comments on the surface parking. That should be a non-starter. For a city center attempting to in-fill we waste the space?
I have not yet had a change to review the proposals but I agree with your comments on the surface parking. That should be a non-starter. For a city center attempting to in-fill we waste the space?
Because, as I’ve stated a few posts back, we’re looking to accept anything right now as opposed to wanting to take it in phases. Again, I’m not sure about the legality of this project in respect to doing it in phases, but I would find it more appropriate to do so in order to guarantee a more dense and sustainable development. These designs (siteplans) are the kind found in mid-2000’s as opposed to being the forward thinking plan such an area should have. I urge patience.
Suburban cities surrounding Raleigh, and probably Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston, Etc, have more dense and sustainable developments being built than what is proposed here. If I had it my way, these concepts would be entirely scrapped, and I would rather opt-in for something like a minor league stadium (of course properties will need to be acquired) than this.
I don’t know if any of you have been following this series of Greenville Fire/Rescue articles by The East Carolinian, but wow... seems to me like there is corruption at all levels of our city government. Why will Letchworth not comment on anything? All of the questions posed are very fair and deserve responses! Why is HR not passing on exit interview requests to the city manager? Something seems very VERY wrong here...
I don’t know if any of you have been following this series of Greenville Fire/Rescue articles by The East Carolinian, but wow... seems to me like there is corruption at all levels of our city government. Why will Letchworth not comment on anything? All of the questions posed are very fair and deserve responses! Why is HR not passing on exit interview requests to the city manager? Something seems very VERY wrong here...
Yes, this is very very odd and troubling. It's also odd that NONE of the other media outlets outside of TEC is covering this or asking any questions about it. IMO this is worse than and is a much bigger story than the whole Chancellor's house thing.
The results of a lawsuit against the city over the denial of a special-use permit for a student apartment complex are expected early next week, after a short trial in Pitt County Superior Court on Monday.
LCD Acquisitions, also known as Landmark Development, is hoping to overturn a decision made by the Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission at its May 17 meeting. The commission denied the development company a special-use permit to operate “dormitory-style units,” where more than three unrelated individuals can live together.
Landmark was planning to use the permit to build The Retreat, a 656-bed student housing complex, off of Charles Boulevard near Fire Tower Road.
The case was heard by Judge Kent Harrell. Spence Johnson, with Johnson, Marlowe, LLP in Athens, GA represented Landmark, and Emanuel McGirt represented the city. Jerry and Jimmy Eatman represented Tara Condominiums. The Landing student apartment complex, and Charles Pascarelli, all of which opposed the project.
Landmark's case against the city was based largely around two points: the violation of due process and the failure of those in opposition of the permit to provide actual evidence as to why the the permit could not be issued.
“It was a tainted, unfair process that was basically being conducted by people that did not understand what they were doing,” Johnson said. “Or considering evidence that was not part of the record, or basically advancing an agenda, being advanced improperly by an ex-parte developer, trying to deprive (Landmark) of the right they had established on the record.”
Central in the discussion was the commission's quasi-judicial role at the May 17 meeting. That role gave the Commission the power to make a judgement on the request for a permit, but it also outlined certain requirements for the judgement was to be made. According to state law, the decision needed to be based on evidence presented during the hearing for the permit. State law also stipulates certain requirements for what constitutes evidence.
The commission was tasked to judge the permit application for the permit by several parameters. If the applicant failed to meet one of those parameters, the application would be denied. Included were stipulations on how the permit would affect traffic and health and safety, the two categories that members of the commission cited before voting against the project.
Johnson centered his argument on what he believed was a breach of due process, and evidence that commission members did not adequately understand their role or how they were suppose to make their decision. Former City Attorney Dave Holec explained these parameters to the commission before their hearing, which Johnson referred to frequently in his arguments.
Johnson also referred depositions taken of the commissioners who voted against the permit.
Johnson said the actual rezoning of the land for the complex was approved by both the commission and the City Council prior to the permit hearing. He said the approved rezoning request permitted the company to build 1,092 bed spaces on the property. The hearing for the special-use permit he said, should have only pertained to what effect allowing 4 bedroom units would have, not student housing. Instead, he said the hearing became a retroactive hearing on their already-established right,
He said the Commision was only allowed to rule of the permit application based on evidence presented at the hearing. He pointed to the deposition of Commissioner Christine Darden, who said on the record that she made her decision based on personal perceptions of the situation, and the deposition of Commissioner Hap Maxwell, who said he went into the hearing with a bias against issuing the permit as just two examples of the breakdown of due process.
Also concerning to Johnson was at the beginning of the May 16 hearing, all five members who voted against the hearing admitted to being contacted by another land developer about concerns with the student housing market.
McGirt and Jimmy Eatman's main argument against the allegations centered on the testimony given by several property managers and developers. McGirt said these individuals provided capable, firsthand evidence that the construction of student housing could be harmful to the general welfare of the city.
Eatman also said the members of the commission disclosed their ex-parte communication before the meeting, and to expect a full discovery to be undertaken at the meeting regarding that admittance is unrealistic.
“These were disclosed, and granted they were not disclosed in full, complete detail,” he said. “But considering the circumstances we think these were disclosures. It is not reasonable to expect the same level of detail on the spot at a public of hearing.”
Harrell said he would review both arguments to determine if there is a case for the decision to be overruled. That decision is expected to be made by next week.
I'm kind of surprised that anyone would want to build any student housing in the area at this point, there is so much of it going up currently. I would think just normal market rate housing would work just fine there.
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.
