Mosaic

Ross Zelenske
From: Bryan De Bruin <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Ross Zelenske
Cc: Courtney Powell; Richard Jackson
Subject: Re: PC Agenda, Meeting Instructions March 2021
CAUTION: This email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or opening
attachments.
Ross,
We would like to defer this month's Planning Commission meeting for our project on Perry Ave.
Best Regards,
Bryan De Bruin, Esq.
Please send all title requests to [email protected]
PLEASE BE AWARE: Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS, call us
immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds. Due to increased fraud, buyers, sellers, and lenders should confirm all wiring
instructions by phone directly with our office before transferring funds
De Bruin Law Firm, LLC

Real Estate & Business Development Attorney
P: 864-982-5930
C: 717-420-0834
F: 864-670-5574
E: [email protected]
W: debruinlawfirm.com
Click here to submit a review:

https://www.real.reviews/debruinlawfirm/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this Email is confidential and may be privileged. This Email is
intended solely for the named recipient or recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of this Email is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform us by replying with the subject
line marked "Wrong Address" and then deleting this Email and any attachments. The De Bruin Law Firm utilizes
regularly updated anti-virus software in an attempt to reduce the possibility of transmitting computer viruses. We do not
guarantee, however, that any attachments to this Email are virus-free.
Nota de confidencialidad: La información que presenta este correo es confidencial, y puede ser de uso privilegiado. Este
correo intenta ser enviado solo al destinatario, o a los destinatarios. Si usted no es el destinatario, no podrá usar, desglosar,
copiar, o distribuir la información de este correo ya que está prohibido. Si usted no es el correcto destinatario, por favor
infórmenos reenviándonos el mismo con el asunto ¨Dirección Incorrecta¨, y luego borre el correo y los adjuntos. De Bruin
1
Law Firm usa regularmente actualizaciones de software anti-virus para así reducir posibles virus. De todas maneras, no
garantizamos que los adjuntos estén libres de virus
From: Ross Zelenske <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 5:06 PM
To: Ross Zelenske <[email protected]>
Cc: Courtney Powell <[email protected]>
Subject: PC Agenda, Meeting Instructions March 2021
Hello,
Below is the online link to the agenda packet for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on Thursday
3/18/21. This link includes the full application documents and staff reports.
https://greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03182021-2595?html=true
If you have any trouble accessing or downloading the information from this email link, please let us know as a paper
copy of the packet will not be sent.
The meeting will be conducted virtually via WebEx. Instructions are attached.
Please respond to confirm your attendance at the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday 3/18/21 to present your
project application. If there is anyone else from your group which needs to be added for your presentation, please
provide their name and email address as soon as possible.
The panelist link will not work if the email has not be registered through WebEx by city staff before the meeting. If the
panelist link does not work, please join the meeting as an attendee and staff will elevate you to a panelist role.
Thank you,
Ross Zelenske
Development Planner | Planning & Development Services
[email protected] | www.greenvillesc.gov
Phone: 864-467-4251
2
The Mosaic at West End
Summary of Changes
The following summary represents the changes made in the planning and design of The Mosaic
at West End.
General Site Items:

-Unit count and overall proposed density remains the same.
-Overall greenspace area has increased. Previously it totaled +/- 1.0 ac or 315 SF/unit and now
it’s 1.26 ac or 403 SF/unit.
-Parking has been provided as 1 space per bedroom which puts us at 1.4 spaces per unit (this
excludes unit types A3 & A4 as they have garages and driveways). We also have parking for
the commercial uses and visitors.
-Trash will be handled through a series of Sutera units and the five-story building will have a
trash chute and trash room with regular scheduled pick-ups.
Apartment Building on Academy St & N. Calhoun St

-The building remains 5-Stories, but the number of units has increase from 69 to 82.
-2 of the 82 units are live/work units located on N. Calhoun St.
-This building features +/- 1,335 SF of Community Oriented Commercial in addition to the two
live/work units. There is also 2,400 SF for the leasing office / clubhouse.
-The parking garage has been eliminated and now features surface parking accessed off of N.
Calhoun St and underground parking accessed from the internal drive. There are no parking
spaces facing the adjacent properties on N. Calhoun St.
-The underground parking will be visible from the adjacent commercial property on Academy
St as the grade lowers towards Academy. However, this area will also be screened with a fence
and landscaping. The ground level units along Academy St will step with the grade and hide
the garage from view on Academy St.
Apartment Building on Ware St

-Per the recommendation from our workshop with Planning Commission members, the
building was flipped to place the parking towards the property line with the adjacent
commercial parcel. This allows for the triangular shaped greenspace at the center of the site to
be surrounded by units.
-This 3-story building has a total of 24 units. The first two levels are 2-story townhome type
units and the third-floor features a 2-bedroom apartment unit.
-At the ground level, the townhomes have small porches/stoops on all sides of the building.
-This building no longer has any live/work units (they were moved to the building on
Academy), but we still activate Ware St with porches.
The Mosaic at West End
Summary of Changes
Townhomes Along Internal Drive (labeled 3 on drawing A2 Site Plan - Proposed Design)
-Number of units reduced from 10 to 8.

-The units have been changed to 3-Story townhomes with a one-car garage and driveway for
additional parking. Changing to 3-Stories w/private garages eliminated surface parking and
allowed for more greenspace.
-The internal drive was rerouted to allow for more greenspace and add more units that face/
open to the large greenspace. Parallel parking spaces with a sidewalk and curb lawn were also
added to the internal drive.
Townhomes Along Perry Ave (labeled 4 on drawing A2 Site Plan - Proposed Design)
-Reconfigured drive entrances on Perry Ave.

-Same number of units on Perry Ave, but with different grouping per building.
-Greenspace between the units provides visual connection and pedestrian access to large
active greenspace.
-Units step to create rhythm and variation to the building facade.
-6 of these units now directly face the large greenspace at the middle of the site.
A thoughtful approach to community development.
Statement of Intent
Greenville, SC
Proposed PD for Affordable Housing
February 2021
SITE
PROJECT LOCATION MAP

Located within the West End Neighborhood District with parcels that border Ware St, Perry Ave, N. Calhoun St and Academy St.
Developer
DEVELOPER HOUSING PARTNER

Saint Capital LLC Greenville Housing Fund
Representative: Representative:
Bryan De Bruin & Richard Jackson Bryan Brown
Design Team
ARCHITECT ARCHITECT
Creative Founder Design Studio SHLTR Architects, LLC
Jared Moore Tara Hile
CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

Bluewater Civil Design McLeod Landscape Architects
Lynn Solesbee Parks McLeod
The Mosaic at West End - Greenville, SC | Statement of Intent | Saint Capital LLC 2
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Introduction
Executive Summary 6
Project Scope & Property Ownership 7
Section 2 - Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing Need 9
Public-Private Partnership 10
Section 3 - Proposed Development

Existing Conditions 12
Design Standards
Scope & Building Types 17
Allowed & Restricted Uses 17
Density 18
Setbacks & Buffer Design 20
Building Heights 20
Parking Types & Ratios 20
Greenspace & Landscape Design 21
Pedestrian Access & Site Circulation 22
Vehicular Access & Site Circulation 22
Trash Collection 22
Site Signage 22
Site Lighting 23
Subdivision 23
Property Maintenance 23
Development Schedule 23
Section 4 - Utilities
Storm Water Design 25
Site Utilities 25
Section 5 - Architectural Design

Overall Design Approach 27
Design Goals 28
Townhouse Design on Perry Ave 29
Townhouse Design - Interior of Site 29
Apartment Building Design on Ware St 29
Apartment Building Design on Academy St 30
Exhibits
Drawings
A-0 Property Location Map
A-1 Site Plan - Existing Conditions
A-2 Site Plan - Proposed Design
A-2.1 Site Plan - Underground Parking
A-3 Site Plan - Setbacks & Buffer Design
L-1 Preliminary Landscape Plan
A-4 Site Plan - Greenspace
A-5 Site Plan - Logistics
A-6 Site Plan - Infrastructure
A-7 Building Sections
A-8 Building Sections
Precedent Images
A-9 Precedent Images
Utilities Letters
Exhibit B - Greenville Water
Exhibit C - ReWa - Capacity Request Form
Exhibit D - Existing Tree Survey
Exhibit E - Traffic Report
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
THE MOSAIC AT WEST END
Executive Summary
The continued growth of Downtown Greenville has been exciting for many. As new business
continues to make its way to our great city, new development has continued to rise to meet
the need of a growing population. It appears every week there is a new article ranking the best
downtown, best main street, and best places to live, and Greenville is always at the top of the
list. This type of growth does not come without negative consequences as well, and the growth
of Greenville has not necessarily been one equally enjoyed by all. Specifically, the growth of
Greenville has resulted in a reduction and shortage of available affordable homes, especially
in Downtown. The result of this growing gap in affordability has only increased the burden
many of our City’s residents face when choosing a place to fall home. The direct challenge of
price is quantifiable, but the indirect challenges, such as an increased daily commutes to work
or school and reduction in community involvement, create a much more burdensome cost of
living.
Saint Capital, LLC is excited to announce the development of Mosaic at the West End. A
Downtown residential community, Mosaic will meet the aforementioned challenges facing
Greenville through a collaborative public-private partnership between Saint Capital, LLC, the
Greenville Housing Fund, and the Greenville Housing Authority. Because renters are among our
City’s residents most negatively impacted by the rising costs of living Downtown, Mosaic at the
West End is designed to be a rental community. The housing opportunities offered to residents
are a blend of two to three story townhomes and one, two, and three bedroom apartments.
Each housing type provides a unique set of features, and the collective creates a complete
design; hence the “mosaic.” The aim of Mosaic at the West End is to bring new development to
Downtown Greenville aimed at providing housing across the rental spectrum in order to allow
our professional service providers a place to live downtown that doesn’t result in a cost burden.
It is our belief that new development needs to strive to answer the call of what our city needs
today and tomorrow.

Through a collaborative partnership with the Greenville Housing Fund and the Greenville
Housing Authority, Mosaic at the West End will utilize the incentives associated with the site’s
location within an opportunity zone as intended when the federal legislation was initially
passed. The redevelopment of this area will enhance the community environment and benefit
Downtown Greenville in keeping with the recently released Comprehensive Plan, and the
Greenville Housing Fund’s Strategic Plan to increase affordability in Greenville. Saint Capital’s
Leadership team are longtime members of the Greenville community, and as such, are excited
about the opportunity to help put forward a dynamic neighborhood development that
answers the call made by the Comprehensive Plan. By redeveloping an underutilized site, this
development will directly address the problems faced by our City’s residents who have often
been overlooked.
Project Scope & Property Ownership
The proposed development is located within the City of Greenville and consists of sixteen
separate parcels which totals to 4.51 acres. The individual property ownership of these parcels
is as follows: (See Exhibit Drawing A-1 Existing Conditions for more information)
Parcel 1 – Tax Map #: 0079000203506 Parcel 9 – Tax Map #: 0079000201300

Address: 108 Perry Ave Address: 127 Ware St
Ownership: GAH Scattered Site, LLC Ownership: Scap Ware, LLC
Acreage: 0.25 Acres Acreage: 0.24 Acres

Address: 106 Perry Ave Address: 116 N. Calhoun St
Parcel 3 – Tax Max #: 0079000203508 Parcel 11 – Tax Map #: 0079000202700


Address: Perry Ave Address: 120 N. Calhoun St

Ownership: GAH Scattered Site, LLC Ownership: Thomas W. Byrd
Acreage: 0.28 Acres Acreage: .11 Acres

Address: 100 Perry Ave Address: N. Calhoun St

Address: 121 Ware St Address: Academy St
Ownership: Scap Ware, LLC Ownership: Scap Ware, LLC

Address: 125 Ware St Address: 129 Academy St
Ownership: Scap Ware, LLC Ownership: Scap Ware, LLC
SECTION 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Affordable Housing Need
In October 2020, Greenville Housing Fund (GHF) and Greenville County Redevelopment
Authority (GCRA) released a communitywide affordable housing strategic work plan.1 In
partnership with Thomas P. Miller and Associates, LLC (TPMA), they collected important
data around the state of affordable housing in Greenville County. The plan analyzes this data
and outlines recommendations going forward. The plan will be executed by members of the
Greenville Affordable Housing Coalition (GAHC), a collective impact group working toward the
production and preservation of affordable housing units in Greenville County.2
In Greenville County, over 50,000 households are cost “cost-burdened”.3 Meaning, over 30%
of the households gross income was spent on housing related expenses.4 As Downtown
Greenville continues to grow, so do housing prices, meaning those households making between
$15,000 to $55,000 continue to see a rise in scarcity of affordable Downtown homes. Of the
50,000 cost burdened households, most are renters and under the age of 35.5 This means, our
first responders, teachers, law enforcement, chefs, grocery store managers, and many other
service-oriented professions are unable to live affordable in Downtown Greenville.
In response to the clear need for future multi-family development to shift its focus to a more
blended approach of both market and below market rate homes, Mosaic at the West End is
a community focused development model aimed at contributing to a solution for the lack of
affordable housing in Greenville. By maintaining ownership of the community and offering
rental homes, Mosaic at West End shall ensure affordable units are well maintained, and
guarantee affordable units are first offered to the households effected by the cost burden
that has resulted from the growth of Downtown Greenville. Mosaic at West End aims to offer
twenty-five percent (25%) of its community as affordable/workforce housing, rent restricted
units. Meaning, these units will be made first available to those households with AMI’s at or
below 80%. However, due to land acquisitions, labor, and building costs, it is critical to achieve
a community density that allows for an overall reduction of per unit pricing, development
assistance, and tax incentives to reduce the ever growing expenses contributing to the rise in
affordable household scarcity in Greenville.
Sources:
1. Greenville Housing Fund Website: https://greenvillehousingfund.com/strategic-plan/
2. Greenville Housing Fund Website: https://greenvillehousingfund.com/strategic-plan/
3. GHF-GCRA Affordable Housing Strategy, Page 3 of 55.
Public-Private Partnership
For communities like Mosaic at the West End to be successful, it is necessary for private
developers and public entities to collaborate and partner on future development projects.
Mosaic at the West End is an example of how vacant and underutilized land can be
transformed into a collaborative development that both accomplishes the goals of private
development, protects against the loss of affordable housing, and even increases it. This site
currently consists of 4.5 acres. Of which, there are currently five (5) rental homes, and one (1)
abandoned building. Transforming underutilized land in Downtown Greenville and reshaping
it into a community with an eye towards the future of infill in Downtown Greenville and an
ear towards the current needs of some our cities most vital workforce is a demonstration on
how public, private partnerships can begin to chip away at the 50,000 households in need of
affordable housing in Greenville.
SECTION 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Existing Conditions
The project site consists of 4.51 acres of which 3.15 acres are vacant land with one
uninhabitable structure. The parcels along Perry Ave are currently owned by the Greenville
Housing Authority and have five rental homes. The vacant parcels feature overgrown and
lightly maintained landscapes and bamboo. Some larger growth trees at the perimeter of the
site have been observed and will be incorporated as able into the proposed landscape design.
Please refer to Exhibit Drawing A-0 Property Location Map and A-1 Existing Conditions for
more information on the location and specific parcels included in the development.
Photo Key Plan:
Existing Conditions
1. View from Academy St looking towards project site and Calhoun St.
2. Corner of Academy and Calhoun St lookings towards project site.
Existing Conditions
3. View of project site from Calhoun St.
4. View towards project site along Calhoun St
Existing Conditions
5. Corner of Perry Ave and Calhoun St looking towards project site.
6. View along Perry Ave at intersection of Memminger St.
Existing Conditions
7. View along Ware St looking towards project site.
8. Dead end at Ware St looking towards project site.
Design Standards
Scope & Building Types

The development features a variety of both residential units and building types. The buildings
have been arranged on the site to best respond to the surrounding neighborhood context and
good urban planning design principles. Please refer to Exhibit Drawing A-2 Proposed Site Plan.
1. Apartment Building 1: A five-story mid-rise apartment building featuring 1, 2 & 3 bedroom

apartment units. This is the largest and tallest building in the development, and is located
along the busy commercial corridor (Academy St).
2. Apartment Building 2: A three-story building made up of two story townhomes with a

flat (2 bedroom apartment) on the third floor. The third story flat is accessed from an open/
exterior stair. The townhomes consist of both 1 & 2 bedroom units, and all feature a front
porch/stoop.
3. Three-Story Townhomes: Two buildings with 4 units each. Each unit features 3 bedrooms,
an outdoor patio, front porch and a front entry one-car private garage. There is also a private
driveway for one additional parking space.
4. Three-Story Townhomes: Five buildings with 3-6 units each. Each unit features 3
bedrooms, a covered front porch, and rear entry two-car private garage (side-by-side).
Allowed Uses & Restricted Uses

The development as proposed is primarily residential in nature and all commercial uses being
planned other than residential are limited to ones generally seen as complementary to the
surrounding residential neighborhood. Examples of these community oriented commercial
uses include: local retail establishments like a coffee shop, juice bar, clothing boutique, artist
studios, art galleries, and small office occupancies.
All approved uses will generally fall within what is allowed within RDV zoning classifications.
Tenants must have advanced approval from the landlord and will be required to meet all
approved standards.
In order to maintain the neighborhood feel of the development, there are specific restrictions
on the type of businesses that will NOT be allowed into the development. Those are specifically
listed below.
Design Standards
Restricted Uses
•ABC (liquor sales) stores
•Adult entertainment, adult bookstore, or adult movie house
•Animal shelter
•Auction house
•Automobile wash or tire store
•Automobile service facility
•Automobile service station
•Bank with drive-thru (financial institutions with no drive-thru are allowed)
•Communications tower
•Fireworks Stands (temporary)
•Industrial or manufacturing
•Junkyard
•Self-service laundromat
•Pawn shop
•Pest or Insect control business (with storage of chemicals)
•Recycling convenience center
•Theater/motion picture uses
•Any facility for the sale, lease or rental of automobile, trucks, motorcycles, recreational
vehicles, boats, or other vehicles
•Spa or massage parlor (excluding “massage envy” or similar therapeutic massage
retailers operating in a first-class manner)
•Mortuary or funeral parlor
•Animal raising or storage facility
•Gun range or shooting club
•Drive-Thru
•Nursing home
•Tobacco store, hookah lounge or electronic cigarette type store
Density
The project features a mix of 1, 2, 3 bedroom apartments, two-story townhomes and three-
story townhomes. The buildings have been oriented on the site in a manner that reflects
their appropriate location in regards to increased density and the surrounding neighborhood
context. Higher densities have been located closer to Academy with a lower density located
along Perry Ave. The overall proposed density is 30.6 units per acre. The diagram on the
following page shows the proposed unit mix and density.
Design Standards
Y ST
ACADEM
T
NS
OU
ALH
N. C
A
WA
RE
B
ST
C
PER
RY
AVE
Unit Mix Density

Apartments: +/- Area/Unit: # of Units: Density Breakdown By Unit Type:
1-Bedroom 650-800 SF 61 Units* A. 82 Units on 1.33 AC = 61.7 Units / AC
2-Bedroom 1,050-1,080 SF 25 Units B. 24 Units on .84 AC = 28.6 Units / AC
3-Bedroom 1,320 SF 4 Units C. 32 Units on 2.34 AC = 13.7 Units / AC
Townhomes:
3-Story, 3-Bedroom 2,000 SF 24 Units
2-Story, 1-Bedroom 900 SF 8 Units Total Proposed Density:
Total: 138 Units 138 Units on 4.51 AC = 30.6 Units / AC
* Two of the 1-Bedroom Units are Live/Work.
Design Standards
Setbacks & Buffer Design

Careful attention will be given to the buffer designs in order to create meaningful and
appropriate connections or screening with streets and adjacent properties. All buffers
provided will meet and exceed City of Greenville requirements with solid wood fencing, canopy
and ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcovers as well as increased plant material quantity
and minimal planting size. These buffers have been divided into four categories; please refer to
Exhibit Drawings A3 - Setbacks & Buffer Design and L1 - Preliminary Landscape Plan for more
information on each specific buffer design.
The following building setbacks are proposed for the development:

Academy St: 15’ Min.
N. Calhoun St: 15’ Min.
Perry Ave: 15’ Min.
Ware St: 20’ Min.
Side Yard Setbacks: 15’ Min.*
* = Side Yard Setback between Apt. Building 1 & Adjacent Commercial Property is 23’.
Please refer to Exhibit Drawing A-3 Setbacks & Buffer Design for specific setback locations.
Building Heights
The building heights for the development vary among the building types spread across the
site. The tallest building height is located along Academy St with the remaining building
heights decreasing and complying with the RM-2 zoning district with a max height of 40’ for
the units on Perry Ave and Ware St.
Proposed Building Heights:

Apartment Building 1: 5 Stories | 65’ Max
Apartment Building 2: 3 Stories | 40’ Max (40’ allowed per RM-2)
Townhomes on Perry Ave: 3 Stories | 36’ Max (40’ allowed per RM-2)
Parking Types & Ratios

Off-Street parking will be provided for all uses and will consist of underground structured
parking, surface parking and private garages (townhomes) All Parking spaces will be 9’ (W) x
18’ (D) with no more than 10 spaces in a row without a landscape island (except in structured
packing). The number of provided parking spaces allows for a minimum of 1 parking space
per bedroom for the apartment units. A3 & A4 townhome units will have a minimum of two
spaces per unit, provided by private garage and driveway.
Design Standards
Provided Off-Street Parking:

Underground Parking: 69 Spaces
Surface Parking: 95 Spaces
Total Spaces: 164 Spaces
Apartments: 104 Units @ 1 Space/Bed = 145 Spaces (1.4 per unit)

Live / Work Units: 2 Units x 2 spaces = 4 Spaces
Commercial = 6 Spaces (1 per 250 SF)*
Visitor Parking = 9 Spaces*
Total Off-Street Parking Provided = 164 Spaces
Townhomes (A3 & A4) = 2 Space/Unit (provided w/ private garage/driveway)
* = Until a specific tenant has been selected the parking allocated for the commercial space
is 1 per 250 SF. Hours of operation for the commercial tenants will occur at hours when the
residential users are at work and thus will have less impact of the overall parking count. Visitor
parking will vary with the hours/usage of the commercial tenant.
The development will also provide numerous locations for bike parking and will meet or exceed
the City of Greenville’s bike parking requirements.
Greenspace & Landscape Design

The development will provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape design for an urban / multi-
family residential development. Greenspace will be central in providing an urban neighborhood
with strategically planted vegetation, which will include curb lawns with canopy trees, planting
beds throughout the development, individual yard and foundation plantings as well as
dense buffer areas between adjacent properties. All necessary City of Greenville landscape
requirements will be meet and exceeded with additional trees, shrubs and groundcovers as
well as increasing required minimal planting size. Every effort will be made to preserve existing
trees where possible. Please refer to Exhibit drawings A-4 Greenspace and L-1 Preliminary
Landscape Plan for more information.
Active vs. Passive Greenspaces:

Active areas are used primarily for recreation and community access. This will be provided
with areas devoted to play and exercise. Passive areas are designed for use in an unstructured
or relaxed way. This will include areas with benches and seating, cook-out, and family
gatherings.
Design Standards
Pedestrian Access & Site Circulation

Pedestrian friendly access and site circulation is an integral part of the proposed development.
All buildings and amenity areas will be connected by sidewalks both internally and with the
existing sidewalks along Perry Ave, Ware St, N. Calhoun St and Academy St. A 5’ wide curb
lawn with street trees will be provided at all public street sidewalks. A new 6’-8’ wide sidewalk
will be provided along Academy with a 5’ wide curb lawn and street trees. Please refer to
Exhibit Drawing A-4 Greenspace for more information.
Vehicular Access & Site Circulation

Vehicular access will be provided by two drives on Perry Ave (City Street), one drive on Ware
St (City Street) and one drive on North Calhoun St (SCDOT). These drives shall have a width
of 24’ (face-of-curb to face-of-curb) in non-aerial access locations. Where aerial access is
required the drive shall have a width of 26’ (face-of-curb to face-of-curb). All drives and curb
radii will allow for emergency vehicle access / circulation and meet fire codes. Please refer to
Exhibit Drawing A-5 Logistics for more information.
Trash Collection
The development’s trash collection will be provided by a private vendor. Apartment building
1 will have an enclosed trash chute and trash room with regular scheduled pick-ups to be
serviced from the loading zone. The apartment building on Ware St and townhomes will
have four underground trash receptacles (Sutera Type) and will be screened with shrubs and
landscaping. Please refer to Exhibit Drawings A-5 Logistics and A-11 Precedent Images for
more information.
Site Signage
Property signage shall be provided at one entrance on Perry Ave (closets to N. Memminger
St) and Ware St. The signage will be designed in a manner that matches the overall character
and architecture of the development. All monument signage will be constructed of permanent
materials such as brick, stone, or other comparable materials and will be in scale with the
proposed development.
Building signage will be used on Apartment Building 1 and will meet all current restrictions
on size, material and lighting in the City of Greenville’s Sign Regulations 19-6.6. Building
signage will be allowed on both Academy and N. Calhoun street frontages. Flashing lights or
electronic signs will not be allowed on the buildings. Painted murals may be installed on the
build to provide local art opportunities. Please refer to Exhibit Drawing A-5 Logistics and A-11
Precedent Images for more information.
Design Standards
Site Lighting
All site lighting shall comply with City of Greenville code Article 19-6.4. All site lighting will be
Dark Sky compliant. Lighting in the parking lot areas will be a maximum of fifthteen feet (15’)
tall. Pedestrian scale lighting will be provided as needed around the site. Care will be given
to prevent light intrusion to the neighboring community. The intent is to provide sufficient
lighting for the safety and comfort of the users of the community while controlling the amount
of light on the site itself and being respectful of the adjacent neighbors. Duke Energy will
provide the site lighting and photometric plan. Please refer to A-11 Precedent Images for
potential site lighting fixtures.
Subdivision
The development, though primarily a rental community, will also look for ways to provide
opportunities for home ownership within the development. Any subdivision of the
development will comply with City of Greenville code.
Property Maintenance
Saint Capital, a member of the development and ownership group, utilizes its own Greenville
based property management company. Mosaic will enjoy local management to include onsite
leasing, management, and maintenance. All residents will comply with stringent community
standards to ensure the neighborhood experience is appreciated by all of those living within
and around the development. Examples include, but are not limited to, strict rules for
trash collection, parking restrictions on all streets, and regular landscaping and greenspace
maintenance.
Development Schedule
Saint Capital began its initial planning and acquisition phase of the project in First Quarter
2020 and quickly expanded its scope to work in conjunction with the Greenville Housing Fund
and Greenville Housing Authority. The expected Closing timeline for private land acquisitions is
June 2021. Additional site planning and due diligence is expected to take place through Second
Quarter 2021 while restrictions are removed on all land parcels. The development team expects
to finalize site design and construction plans during that same time period. The reasonable
expectation for demolition of existing structures is Summer 2021, with site work to begin
shortly thereafter. Assuming no significant delays, the development team expects a 24- 30
month construction project.
SECTION 4 SITE UTILITIES
Section 4 - Site Utilities
Stormwater Design
Stormwater management will be designed to meeting Article 19-7 of the City of Greenville
code. Underground detention system (StormTech or similar) will be primary attenuation and
water quality device. Proprietary water quality devices may also be utilized. Please refer to
Exhibit Drawing A-6 Infrastructure for more information.
Site Utilities
The development is not expected to create an adverse impact on existing public facilities.
All utilities and construction will be in accordance with all applicable building codes, zoning
ordinances and all other city, county and state laws and ordinances.
Utilities are provided by City of Greenville Sewer, ReWa, Piedmont Natural Gas, Duke Energy
and Greenville Water System. Fire protection is provided by City of Greenville Fire department.
Letters providing for sewer availability, water availability and fire protection from the
associated agencies are included as Exhibit B and Exhibit C. Please refer to Exhibit Drawing
A-6 Infrastructure for more information.
SECTION 5 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Overall Design Approach
BUILDING HEIGHTS & DENSITY

DECREASED TOWARDS
NEIGHBORHOOD
ACADEMY ST TALLER BUILDING FACES

COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
T
NS
OU
ALH
N. C
WA
RES
T
PE
RR
YA
VE
TOWNHOUSE FORMS & FRONT

ENTRANCE ALIGNED WITH PORCHES CREATE NEIGHBORHOOD
N. MEMMINGER ST CONNECTION
Developer
MASSING DIAGRAM
SAINT CAPITAL Building Massing & Design Approach PD Statement of Intent - Exhibit Drawing
Architect Architect Civil Engineering Landscape Architect Greenville, SC October 19th, 2020
The architectural intent for this project is to contribute to the existing neighborhood by
creating affordable and market rate multi-family units of varying styles and sizes. We have
included both apartments and townhome styles with a mix of 1, 2- and 3-bedroom units. The
buildings have been arranged on the site to best respond to the surrounding neighborhood
context by placing the more dense building types and commercial uses near the busy
Academy Street frontage while stepping down in size, density, and scale to the surrounding
single-family neighborhood. The townhomes will draw upon more traditional residential
massing to blend with the esthetics and character of the existing residential neighborhood.
The apartment buildings will use similar materials and detailing while taking on an architectural
language that is more typical with a building of that scale.
Though the buildings may differ in scale and massing, the goal for the overall architectural
aesthetic is to have a cohesive look/brand for the entire development. This will be
accomplished through using similar colors, materials and architectural details across the
different building types.
Design Goals
Designed for Human Experience

Design for people and for their
experience of place.
Mixed Incomes Efficient Design Enjoyable

Provide housing options Design that balances efficient Create a place that’s
that meet a variety of land use with promoting quality enjoyable to live through art
incomes. of life. and community.
Sustainable Variety of Unit Types Community Oriented

Promote sustainability Provide a variety of unit types Promote a sense of
through both passive and and sizes and provide accessible community in both the site
active design strategies. units. and building designs.
Visually Appealing Bikable & Walkable Access to Public Transportation

Create architecture that Provide infrastructure that Provide convenient and
adds visual value to an encourages and accommodates quality access to public
existing neighborhood. biking and walking. transportation.
Townhouse Design on Perry Ave

The single family attached “townhome” style units oriented along Perry Avenue will be
3-stories in height with a 21’ width. Each townhome will have individual ground level covered
porches for the front entry. Rear loading two-car garages are provided with access from the
interior drive.
The interior row of townhomes which also run along the access driveway parallel to Perry
Avenue, will be of similar design to the townhomes facing Perry Ave. The grouping of 6 which
faces the open green space will also have ground level porch entrances.
All facades will use building materials, porches, and projected window bays to help with the
overall composition and massing. The façade designs will also provide changes in color and
texture. The rooflines will vary but consist of primarily a pitched roof form and the potential
for additional roof detailing over projected window bays and porches/patios. There will also
be additional articulation in the facades due to every other unit stepping back or forward from
the neighboring unit. Materials will include fiber cement panels, trim, and lap siding, along with
masonry veneer of varying sizes and complementary color schemes. Roofing materials will
mainly consist of asphalt shingles with accents of flat or standing seam metal roofing. No more
than 6 townhomes have been “grouped/attached” within a building.
We will provide screening for all ground and roof level mechanical equipment and utility areas.
Townhouse Design - Interior of Site (along internal drive)

The single family attached “townhome” style units oriented along the main internal drive will be
3-story in height with an 18’-6” width. Each townhome will have individual ground level covered
porch entrances along-side a single car garage. There is enough depth to park and additional
car within the driveway in front of the garage doors. Rear patios and greenspace will also be
provided. These units overlook the open greenspace.
All facades will use building materials, porches, and projected window bays to help with the
texture. The rooflines will vary but consist of primarily a pitched roof form and the potential
for additional roof detailing over projected window bays and porches/patios. There will also
be additional articulation in the facades due to every other unit stepping back or forward from
the neighboring unit. Materials will include fiber cement panels, trim, and lap siding, along with
masonry veneer of varying sizes and complementary color schemes. Roofing materials will
mainly consist of asphalt shingles with accents of flat or standing seam metal roofing.
We will provide screening for all ground and roof level mechanical equipment and utility areas.
Apartment Building Design on Ware St

The proposed building located at Ware Street will be 3 stories in height and consist of both
“townhome style” apartment units which will be 2 stories in height and accessed off the
ground floor level, and 1-level apartment units located on level 3. This unique configuration
allows for the inclusion of unique and sought-after unit plan designs, along with the ability
to create variation at the façade with the use of entry porches, balconies, bay windows, etc.
Circulation to the 3rd floor will be via an open-air stairway with secure entry points.
This type of grouping also helps break down the scale of the building into 3 smaller masses vs.
one large elongated building.
All facades will use building materials, balconies, and projected window bays to help with the
overall composition and massing. The façade design will also provide changes in color and
texture and stepping of the building mass. The roofline will consist of variations between a low
slope/flat roof with parapet and pitched/sloped areas. There will also be accented areas over
bay windows, porches, and balconies. Materials will include fiber cement panels, trim, and lap
siding, along with masonry veneer of varying sizes and complementary color schemes. We will
provide screening for all ground and roof level mechanical equipment and utility areas.
Apartment Building Design on Academy St

The proposed building located at the corner of Academy and Calhoun Streets (primarily
facing along Academy) will be 5 stories in height and will consist of primarily a mix of 1, 2 and
3-bedroom apartment units. This building will help activate the Academy Street property
frontage while screening the interior part of the site from the busy roadway. There is a primary
tenant entry point located from the interior courtyard side and also along the front of the
building facing the corner of Academy and Calhoun St.
The overall building sits on a lower-level parking “garage”. The garage entry point is from the
interior of the site along the diagonal drive to take advantage of grade differences along the
site. The garage will be bounded by units along Academy street and therefor not visible. The
garage is only visible at the back entry point and along the side of the garage bounded by
the commercial neighbor’s property. There is a larger set back at this boundary to allow for
landscape screening and storm water drainage of the site.
The massing of the building will step back at the upper floors to help with scale and feel along
Academy St. The corner of the building will be anchored and accentuated using a composition
of materials, balconies, lighting, and signage. Due to the topography at the corner of the site,
there will be a mixture of site walls, plazas, hardscaping, and landscaping to also help activate
this prominent building corner. The leasing office will be located off the main ground level
parking area for convenience and to allow live/work and commercial spaces along Calhoun and
at the corner of academy. There will also be nice views towards the new Unity Park and Paris
Mountain from the upper levels of the building facing Academy St.
Ground level units with entry points along Academy street will feature elevated stoop/porch
designs to help activate the street frontage and create a “buffer” of privacy for each unit.
All facades will use building materials, balconies, and projected window bays to help with the
texture. Materials will include fiber cement panels, trim, and lap siding, masonry veneer of
varying sizes and complementary color schemes, along with metal and “wood-look” accented
areas.
The roofline will consist of varying height flat roofs with parapet walls and the potential for
accented roof areas over projected window bays and balconies. We will provide screening for
all ground and roof level mechanical equipment and utility areas.
EXHIBITS
MI
.5
MI
5
.2
23
HWY 1
WA
PER
RY
AVE
R
ES
T
M I
.2 5
I
.5 M
Developer
A0 | PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
SAINT CAPITAL PD Statement of Intent - Exhibit Drawing

Architect Architect Civil Engineering Landscape Architect Greenville, SC February, 2021
A1 | SITE PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS
1” = 50’-0”
0 25 50 100
Property Scope:

Address: 108 Perry Ave Address: 127 Ware St
Y ST
Ownership: GAH Scattered Site, LLC
Acreage: 0.25 Acres
Ownership: Scap Ware, LLC
Acreage: 0.24 Acres
ACADEM

14 15
Ownership: GAH Scattered Site, LLC
Acreage: 0.29 Acres
Acreage: 0.29 Acres 13
Parcel 3 – Tax Max #: 0079000203508
Address: 104 Perry Ave
Parcel 11 – Tax Map #: 0079000202700
Address: 118 N. Calhoun St 12 16
11
T
NS
Address: Perry Ave Address: 120 N. Calhoun St
OU
Acreage: 1.06 Acres Acreage: 0.16 Acres 10
ALH
N. C
Ownership: GAH Scattered Site, LLC Ownership: Thomas W. Byrd
Acreage: 0.28 Acres Acreage: .11 Acres
9
WA
Address: 100 Perry Ave Address: N. Calhoun St
RE
8
ST

Address: 121 Ware St Address: Academy St
Acreage: 0.26 Acres
Acreage: 0.04 Acres
7
Address: 125 Ware St Address: 129 Academy St
Acreage: 0.26 Acres
Acreage: 0.50 Acres 4
1
2
3
5
6
PER
RY
AVE
PD Statement of Intent - Exhibit Drawing
Greenville, SC February, 2021
Developer Architect Civil Engineering Landscape Architect
SAINT CAPITAL
A2 | SITE PLAN - PROPOSED DESIGN
1” = 50’-0”
0 25 50 100
Drawing Legend:
Apartment Building 1: 83,825 SF | 5-Story | 16,765 SF/FL

1 Num. of Units: 82 Units
Parking: Surface Parking & Underground Parking
4
Apartment Building 2: 25,850 SF | 3-Story | 8,616 SF/FL
Y ST
2 Num. of Units: 24 Units ACADEM
Parking: Surface Parking
Townhomes A3: 14,400 SF | 3-Story

3 Num. of Units: 8 Units 5 1
Parking: One-Car Garage & One Driveway Space
Townhomes A4: 48,000 SF | 3-Story

4 Num. of Units: 24 Units
Parking: Two-Car Garage, Side-by-Side
T
NS
OU
5
ALH
Areas & Units:
Apartments: 106 Units 109,675 SF Total Area 25,381 SF Total Footprint
N. C
WA
Townhomes: 32 Units 62,400 SF Total Area 20,800 SF Total Footprint
Total Units: 138 Units 172,075 SF Total Area 46,181 SF total Footprint
RE
1
ST
Non-Residential Uses:
4
Community Oriented Commercial: 1,335 SF
Live / Work Units: 2,185 SF | 2 Units @ +/- 1,100 SF Ea. 1
Total Non-Residential Uses: 3,520 SF
Leasing Office / Clubhouse: 2,400 SF 2
2
Parking:
Underground Parking Structure: 69 Spaces
Surface Parking: 95 Spaces 3
Total Spaces: 164 Spaces 3
Apartments: 145 Spaces | 1.4 / Unit | 1 / Bedroom

Live / Work Units: 4 Spaces | 2 / Unit
Commercial: 6 Spaces | 1 per 250 SF
Visitor Parking: 9 Spaces 4
Townhomes A3: 2 / Unit - Private Garage & Driveway Parking 3
Townhomes A4: 2 / Unit - Private Garage Parking
Land Use: 4
Apartment Building 1: 82 Units on 1.33 Acres = 61.7 Units / Acre
4
Apartment Building 2: 24 Units on .84 Acres = 28.6 Units / Acre
4
Townhomes: 32 Units on 2.34 Acres = 13.7 Units / Acre
Total: 138 Units on 4.51 Acres = 30.6 Units / Acre
4
PER
RY
AVE
2
SAINT CAPITAL
A2.1 | SITE PLAN - UNDERGROUND PARKING
1” = 50’-0”
0 25 50 100
4
982'
984' 982'
984'
986'
986'
988'
980'
4
986'

SAINT CAPITAL
A3 | SITE PLAN - SETBACKS & BUFFER DESIGN
1” = 50’-0”
0 25 50 100
Drawing Legend:
Type “A” Buffer - Neighborhood:

Neighborhood Buffers focus on residential housing facing public streets.
Buffers in these area will include curb lawn, street trees, strategically
selected plant material that will enhance the buildings architecture while
ST
4
Y
ACADEM
providing a uniform landscape and foundation planting.
15’
Type “B” Buffer - Dense Green:
Dense Green Buffers provide the maximum amount of screening by utilizing
solid wood fencing, large canopy trees and large growing evergreen plant material.
Plant materialselected for this buffer will be diverse in species to avoid a 5 15’ 23’
mono-culture environment. Canopy trees will provide a seasonal interest while
offering screening at a greater height.
Type “C” Buffer - Dense Green / Patio & Porch:

Dense Green/Patio Buffer will provide the residential units backyards enhanced
T
NS
screening with a solid wood fence and tall growing evergreen plant material to
add additional screening and interest. Additionally large canopy trees will provide
OU
vertical height and shading while the ornamental trees will provide a lower scale
5
ALH
seasonal appeal.
15’ 20’
N. C
Type “D” Buffer - Urban:
Urban Buffe will provide street trees, curb lawn and selections of evergreen 15’
ornamental plant material. Density of ornamental plant material will be based 1
WA
on final architectural façade and details.
RE
Refer to Landscape Plan for more information on all buffer designs. 1
ST
15’
6’ Tall Wood Privacy Fence
2
Setbacks:
15’
15’ Academy St: 15’ 15’ 3
15’ N. Calhoun St: 15’
15’ 15’
15’ Perry Ave: 15’
20’ Ware St: 20’

3
15’ Side Yard Setbacks 15‘
23’ Side Yard Setback between Apt. Building 1 & Adjacent Commercial Property = 23’
15’
15’
PER
RY
AVE
2
SAINT CAPITAL
A4 | SITE PLAN - GREENSPACE
1” = 50’-0”
0 25 50 100
Drawing Legend:
Pedestrain Circulation
Greenspace / Open Space

P = Passive Greenspace: +/- 30,545 SF | .70 AC | 225 SF / Unit
ST
4
Y
ACADEM
A= Active Greenspace: +/- 24,160 SF | .55 AC | 178 SF / Unit
Total Greenspace: +/- 54,705 SF | 1.26 AC | 403 SF / Unit
A Active Greenspace
Active areas are used primarily for recreation and community access.
This will be provided with areas devoted to play and exercise. 5
P Passive Greenspace
P P
Passive areas are designed for use in an unstructured or relaxed way.
This will include areas with benches and seating, cook-out, and family
gatherings.
T
NS
OU
5
ALH
N. C
1
WA
4
RE
A 1
ST
P
P
P
2
3
P A
P
PER
RY
AVE
2
SAINT CAPITAL
A5 | SITE PLAN - LOGISTICS
1” = 50’-0”
0 25 50 100
Drawing Legend:
Fire Truck - Aerial Access
Y ST
Aerial Access Required ACADEM
4
Delivery Truck Circulation
Trash Truck Circulation

S
Dumpster Enclosure S
5 M
Dumpster S
Sutera
S
M Mailboxes
T
NS
S
Property Signage
OU
5
ALH
Two-Way Drive
N. C
1
WA
S
RE
1
ST
M
2
3
PER
RY
AVE
PD Statement of Intent - Exhibit Drawing S
2
SAINT CAPITAL
A6 | SITE PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE
1” = 50’-0”
0 25 50 100
Drawing Legend:
Underground Detention
Storm Drain
Y ST
ACADEM
Sewer Line
Water Line
D
H
Storm Drain Easement
Sewer line Easement
Water Line Easement
Fire Hydrant
T
Y
D
H
NS
OU
ALH
N. C
WA
RE
ST
Y
D
H
PER
RY
AVE
SAINT CAPITAL
2’-0” 5’-0”
SIDEWALK
6’-0” +/- 17’-6” +/- 6’-0” WARE ST
PORCH CURB
LAWN
1 Site Section - Ware Street PROPERTY LINE
1/16” = 1’-0”
5’-0”
SIDEWALK
PERRY AVE +/- 8’-6” +/- 12’-0” 6’-0” 9’-0” 24’-0” 11’-0” 6’-0” ACTIVE GREENSPACE
CURB PORCH DRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVE DRIVEWAY PORCH

LAWN
2 Site Section - Perry Ave

1/16” = 1’-0”
8’-0”
PARALLEL PARKING
N. CALHOUN ST 15’-0” - SETBACK 24’-0” 24’-0” +/- 10’-6” ACTIVE GREENSPACE

PRIVATE DRIVE CURB LAWN/
+/- 9’-0” 6’-0” 6’-0” 18’-0”
SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAY
3 Site Section - Internal Drive & Greenspace

1/16” = 1’-0”
Developer
A7 | BUILDING SECTIONS

+/- 15’-0”
+/- 12’-0” 24’-0” 12’-0” +/- 12’-0” 3’-0” +/-9’-6” 8’-0” +/-5’-0” ACADEMY ST
DRIVE LOADING SIDEWALK CURB

ZONE LAWN
4 Site Section - Academy Street

1/16” = 1’-0”
+/-15’-0”
N. CALHOUN ST 5’-0” +/-7’-6” 12’-0” 3’-0” +/-23’-0”
CURB PLAZA
LAWN
5 Site Section - N. Calhoun Street

1/16” = 1’-0”
Developer
A8 | BUILDING SECTIONS

Architect Architect Civil Engineering Landscape Architect Greenville, SC February 2021
3-Story Townhomes 3-Story Townhomes 3-Story Townhomes w/Front Entry Garage & Front Door Front Porch - Townhomes
3-Story Townhomes - Roof Form & Mix of Materials 5-Story Apartment Building 5-Story Apartment Building 5-Story Apartment Building - Units on Academy
3-Story Apartment Building & Courtyard Space 3-Story Apartment Building - Porch & Entry Apartment Building Entry & Signage 5-Story Apartment Building
Developer
A9 | PRECEDENT IMAGES

Townhome Landscaping Sidewalks & Townhome Landscaping Active Green Space Amenity Area
Passive Green Space Apartment Building Landscaping Active Green Space
Buffers & Screening & Wood Fence Buffers & Screening Buffers & Screening HVAC Screening
Developer

Sutera Trash & Recycle System Site Lighting Site & Building Signage
Site Lighting - Interior sidewalks on site.
Site Lighting - Parking Lots.
Developer

Exhibit B
—S »
i.’ GreenvilleWater
Sa” 407 West Broad Street ¢ P.O. Box 687 Greenville, SC 29602 e 864.241.6155 tel e 864.241.6077 fax e www.greenvillewater.com
September 30, 2020
Bluewater Civil Design, LLC

Attn: Mr. Steven Sawicki
718 Lowndes Hill Road
Greenville, SC 29607
Email: [email protected]
RE: Tax Map #0079000203500 — Perry Avenue
Dear Mr. Sawicki:
Greenville Water owns and maintains a 16-inch water line which is available to serve the
property above in accordancewith the Rules of Greenville Water
System improvements may be required at the developer’s expense. A substantially complete

set of plans and estimated total domestic and fire demand should be submitted to Greenville
Water for reviewfor final capacity determination.
A map depicting the existing water lines in this area has been enclosed for your convenience.
Sincerely,
GREENVILLE WATER
Drsanv Usenet?
Susan Overstreet
DevelopmentServices Engineer
SO/c
Enclosure
oO
. 55 \\@ AX Greenville
, 0074000500300 |, & = Water
_—— é " o
b
h— / / 0001255340 4 ty ‘ , oO
=
Ssaoa ;
! ¢ i i :
007900010100 |
0091257 ay o
VasantButterfly Valves
a7 : 7X + \ eh 0! re, g @ Direction Not Known
7. ou heal Va 80 cae aa @ OpenLeft
Le 411 411 1147 126 0 3 a Sonit

pen Right
oo7eo00e00400111 Sy | Altitude Valves
@ <
11 444 Jay
ioe | Air Valves
Blow Off Valves
Check Valves
eHn
Flow Control Valves
: — Fireline Valves
i Y @ Direction Not Known
‘ + 12513 cs @ Open Let

: \ \ee bee \ @ Open Right
C+ " \
\ Oo 1 \ 0001244440 Hydrant Valves
. ae sole| ; Ww * ‘ @ Direction Not Known
: +> \ ‘ ISs—<4
; OONST410% AN @ pen tet
) ae \ @ Open Right
Line Valves
, tee
1 Overview Map
og les | -
i 000 r2tnsso!!
ns !
, fii ae Ll op 1S: 0001251630 _!

ef
a foi ff a “OU & 0001252210, + x aN
{rs SPERpy ss] t4 \ 10 osoSTEUf an
= ; f 'o a mou 6 a) 24} + ¥ of
0080000200100 a e, T0904
+ weFE og
pf
le 4nf 31
ei fff S43 31/ + | 0001252820 \16-7804
f / isc} / i oa 7 fo001253030\>' 44-8
=: i i ANOS Pe
Pei 706 /
(Ge
EA i | ee
po"
as ee ;
/ /
This map is not an as-built and is for general reference purposes only.
309 0 154 309 ) : 2 rae
Greenville Water expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability :
that mayarise from the useof this map.
Feet 9/22/2020
Exhibit B
Public Main Extension Preliminary
Capacity Request Form Exhibit C
Form Revision Date:4/13/2016
Project Information
Project Name: Ware Street Townhomes Date: 9/17/2020
Engineer (Company): Bluewater Civil Design, LLC Phone: 864-326-4207
Engineer (Contact): Lynn Solesbee Signature:
Engineer Address: 718 Lowdes Hill Road Greenville, SC 29607 Email: [email protected]
Developer (Company): De Bruin Law Firm Phone: 864-982-5930
Developer (Contact): Bryan De Bruin Email: [email protected]
Developer Address: 16 Wellington Avenue, Greenville, SC 29609
Tax Map Numbers for Project: 0079000203506, -3507, -3508, -3509, -3510, -3500, -1300, -1200, -1100, -1400, -2500, -2501, -2600, -2700, -2800
Proposed Water Resource Recovery Facility: Mauldin Road
Estimated Total Sewer Flow: 34,233 gal/day. Attach Flow Calculations. (Average daily flow as calculated using SCDHEC Unit Contributory Loadings)
Connection Type - X
Gravity Force Main Connection Point - X
Satellite Sewer MH ReWa MH
Existing flow-3,900 GPD
Attach map identifying proposed connection point to existing collection/trunk sewer.
New flow-34,223GPD-3,900GPD=30,323 GPD
Are Multiple Collection Agencies involved? Yes X No If yes, both agencies will need to fill out the respective portions of the form below.
Ownership, Operation & Maintenance of Collection System will be assigned to: City of Greenville
Will there be a new Pump Station associated with this development? Yes X
No
Primary Satellite Sewer Agency Preliminary Approval Agency Name: City of Greenville
Does capacity appear to be available to serve this project? X

Yes No Approved Connection Point? X
Yes No
Comments: Valid for one year. Connection via new main extension to MH29311. Any new connection to brick manhole will require
replacement to a precast manhole. Flows may be reduced to actual construction.
Collection Agency Signature: Date: 10/7/2020
Secondary (Transport) Sewer Agency Preliminary Approval Agency Name:
Does capacity appear to be available to serve this project? Yes No

Comments:
Collection Agency Signature: Date:
ReWa Preliminary Approval

x
ReWa has verified all affected agencies have completed review form. ReWa Project No: PME2020-117
Does ReWa capacity appear to be available to serve this project? x

Yes No Approved Connection Point? x
Yes No
Is project authorized to move to the Step 2 permitting process? x

Yes No ReWa Pretreatment form attached? Yes x
N/A
Comments:
ReWa Representative: Date: 10/13/20

This form does not constitute a permit to connect from ReWa or any sanitary sewer agency, nor is it to be used to obtain building permits from any regulatory agency.
In cases where capacity appears available to serve a project, such capacity can neither be guaranteed nor reserved by this preliminary approval. Capacity is allocated on
a first come first serve basis during the subsequent ReWa Capacity Approval Process (Step 2). Upon meeting all requirements (plan review and approval, payment of
all applicable fees, etc.), ReWa will issue a separate letter for use in obtaining a SCDHEC Permit to Construct. The engineer shall contact the individual Satellite Sewer
Agencies involved to determine their policies, procedures, and requirements. Note: Approval is valid for 24 months from the executed date of this document.
Exhibit D
WARE STREET MULTIFAMILY
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Greenville, South Carolina
Prepared for
Thalhimer
Prepared by
Draft - October 22, 2020

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Ware Street Multifamily Traffic Impact Study Draft - October 22, 2020
i
Signature Page
WARE STREET MULTIFAMILY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Table of Contents
Subject Page
Signature Page ................................................................................................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
2023 No Build Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Proposed Site .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2023 Build Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Need for Turn Lanes.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Traffic Operations .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Turn Lane Storage........................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Post Office Box 9192

Greenville, South Carolina 29604
864/346-3106
__________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
Table of Contents
Subject Page
Signature Page ................................................................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................ iv
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
2023 No Build Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Proposed Site .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2023 Build Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Need for Turn Lanes.......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Traffic Operations ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Turn Lane Storage ........................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
__________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 – Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 – 2020 Adjusted Existing Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 – 2020 Adjusted Existing Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 4 – 2023 No Build Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5 – 2023 No Build Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 6 – Morning Peak Hour Site Trips ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7 – Afternoon Peak Hour Site Trips ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8 – 2023 Build Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 12
Figure 9 – 2023 Build Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure B-1 – October 2020 Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... Appendix B
Figure B-2 – October 2020 Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. Appendix B
Figure B-3 – Volume Adjustment Factor Development .................................................................................................... Appendix B
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 – Historical SCDOT Traffic Counts ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2 – Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 3 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4 – Capacity Analyses Results – Signalized Intersection – Existing Geometry

Academy Street/Calhoun Street ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5 – Capacity Analyses Results – Unsignalized Intersection – Existing Geometry

Calhoun Street/Perry Street ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 6 – Capacity Analyses Results – Unsignalized Intersection – Existing Geometry

Pendleton Street/Calhoun Street ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 7 – Capacity Analyses Results – Unsignalized Intersection

Perry Avenue/Memminger Street/Perry Eastern Access .................................................................................................. 18
Table 8 – Capacity Analyses Results – Unsignalized Intersection – 2023 Build Volumes

Site Accesses .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 9 – Queues and Storage Lengths in Feet.............................................................................................................................. 19

iv
__________________________________________________________________________________________
List of Appendices
Subject Appendix
Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................................... A
Traffic Counts ................................................................................................................................................................................... B
SCDOT Turn Lane Guideline Graphs ............................................................................................................................................... C
Capacity Analysis and Queue Printouts ........................................................................................................................................... D
__________________________________________________________________________________________
WARE STREET MULTIFAMILY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Introduction
The proposed Ware Street Multifamily development is located in the block formed by Academy Street, Calhoun
Street, Perry Avenue, and Ware Street. As shown in the site plan in Appendix A, the development will have 138
multifamily units and 2500 square feet of non-residential. The multifamily buildings will all have three to five
stories except one townhouse building with ten units which will have two stories. The commercial space is
intended for live-work uses and will not be fitted for restaurant use. One access point will be located on Calhoun,
and two access points will be located on Perry. A secondary access will be located on Ware Street. The
pavement treatment on this access is planned to be pavers or other materials that will discourage use of this
access. The projected build out year is 2022. The study year for this study is build out plus one year which is
2023. In this study, Academy Street, Perry Avenue, the Calhoun access, and the Ware Street access are
considered east-west. Calhoun, Memminger, Ware, and the Perry accesses are considered north-south.
Executive Summary
The findings of the study are:
- All study intersections currently operate acceptably and can continue to do so with 2023 no build
and 2023 build volumes. The turn lane storage provided at Academy/Calhoun and
Calhoun/Pendleton can accommodate 2023 build volumes.
- Neither left turn nor right turn lanes are necessary at the site accesses. The site access
intersections can operate acceptably with all one-lane approaches with 2023 build volumes.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to meet the requirements of the South Carolina Department of Transportation
(SCDOT) for issuing encroachment permits. Given the estimated trip generation of the site, the City of Greenville
did not require a traffic impact study. Therefore, the study was conducted per SCDOT requirements, but the City
was contacted for input regarding the scope. The study was conducted for the traditional morning and afternoon
peak hours, and the study intersections are:
- Academy Street (US 124)/Calhoun Street (S-80/1297)
- Calhoun Street/Perry Avenue
- Calhoun Street/Pendleton Street (SC 124)
- Perry Avenue/Memminger Street/Perry eastern access
- Perry Avenue/Perry western access
- Calhoun/Calhoun access
- Ware Street/Ware access
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions in the study area are illustrated in Figure 1. Academy Street is a five-lane road, and
Pendleton Street is a four-lane road. At the signalized intersection of Academy/Calhoun, the middle lane on
Academy provides left turn lanes on both Academy, and at the signalized intersection of Pendleton/Calhoun, left
turn lanes are provided on the Calhoun approaches. All other streets are two-lane, and all other intersections are
controlled by side street stop signs. Speed limits are 40 miles per hour on Academy, 30 miles per hour on
Calhoun, Perry, and Pendleton and not posted on Memminger or Ware.
Turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections in October 2020. When the counts were
conducted not all public schools had returned to regular session, and some businesses still had some employees
working from home in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. The counts were conducted during the time periods
of 7:00 – 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. and are included in Appendix B. The peak hours were identified, and
the October 2020 morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figures B-1 and B-2,
respectively in Appendix B. Counts were also conducted at Academy/Westfield/Wardlaw where counts from
2019 were available from another study. These 2019 counts are also included in Appendix B.
In Figure B-3 in Appendix B, the steps taken to obtain an adjustment factor for October 2020 counts are shown.
First, the 2019 peak hour volumes at Academy/Westfield/Wardlaw are shown and totaled. Then these totals are
increased by one percent to bring them to 2020. (See following section of this report for an explanation of why
one percent was used.) Then the October 2020 intersection volumes are shown and totaled. The 2020 total
intersection volumes (based on 2019 counts) were divided by the October 2020 total intersection volumes to
obtain the ratios 1.27 for the morning and 1.17 for the afternoon. The October 2020 peak hour volumes were
multiplied by these ratios to obtain the 2020 adjusted existing peak hour volumes shown in Figure 2 for morning
peak hour and in Figure 3 for afternoon peak hour. Given that the Ware access will be located on Ware Street
just two houses away from a dead end, conducting a count at that location would not have been productive. A
single-family residence is expected to generate about one trip per afternoon peak hour. That was doubled for the
two houses at the end of Ware, and the volumes shown in Figures 2 and 3 for this location were assumed.
2023 No Build Conditions
No-build traffic is the traffic that would be at the study intersections in the future without the proposed
development. Background traffic is made up of existing traffic and any increase or decrease in volumes which
might occur from general growth trends in the surrounding area or from nearby specific approved but not built
developments. One way to estimate background traffic growth is to examine historical SCDOT traffic volumes.
As shown in Table 1, SCDOT has two annual traffic count stations near the study intersections. Between 2009
and 2019, traffic volumes went up and down as did volumes at many stations across South Carolina due to the
economic downturn at the beginning of this period. It is reasonable to use the growth that occurred between
2011 and 2019 or 2012 and 2019 as representative of recent traffic volume growth. The total of the volumes
decreased from 2012 to 2019. Between 2011 and 2019, the volumes increased 0.3 percent per year. One
percent per year is a reasonable growth rate at this location and was used in this study. The 2020 adjusted
existing peak hour traffic volumes were increased by one percent per year for three years, and the 2023 no build
peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4 for the morning peak hour and in Figure 5 for the afternoon peak
hour.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
8
Table 1
HISTORICAL SCDOT TRAFFIC COUNTS
Ware Street Multifamily Traffic Impact Study
Location 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
(Station #)
Pendleton E of Calhoun 8300 8200 7900 7800 8500 8000 8500 8400 8200 9600 10400
(#231)
Calhoun S of Pendleton 950 950 1000 850 900 800 800 950 850 1000 1150
(#811)
Proposed Site
Trip Generation – All trip generation information was taken from the 10th Edition of Trip Generation, Institute of
Transportation Engineers. For the residential portions of the development there are trip generation equations that
can be used directly (more than four units per building and three or more stories = mid-rise = 125 units; either
only three units per building or less than three stories = low-rise = 13 units). As for the commercial portion of the
site, only 2,500 square feet are planned, and the most likely uses for live-work are small retail and small office.
The infrastructure for restaurants will not be provided. Because this is a low square footage and constants in the
trip generation equations for shopping center (the only close retail land use) are high, using rates is more
appropriate for this site. Apportioning the morning trip rates (0.94 for shopping center with 62 percent entering
and 38 percent exiting and 1.92 for small office with 83 percent entering and 17 percent exiting) a blended rate of
1.43 trips per 1,000 square feet with 72 percent entering and 28 percent exiting was used. For the afternoon
peak hour, the blended rate of 3.13 trips per 1,000 square feet with 40 percent entering and 60 percent exiting
was used (3.81 for shopping center with 48 percent entering and 52 percent exiting and 2.45 for small office with
32 percent entering and 68 percent exiting). These are reasonable rates for this location, but to be sure that the
site trips are not understated no pass-by or internal trip deductions will be taken in this study.
The trip generation for the site was estimated as follows:

o Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)-Land Use Code 220–independent variable is dwelling units
▪ Morning Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic: LnT=0.95LnX-0.51 = 7 - 23% enter = 2, 77% exit
=5
▪ Afternoon Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic: LnT=0.89LnX-0.02 = 10 – 63% enter = 6, 37%
exit = 4
o Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)-Land Use Code 221–independent variable is dwelling units
▪ Morning Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic: LnT=0.98LnX-0.98 = 43 - 26% enter = 11, 74%
exit = 32
▪ Afternoon Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic: LnT=0.96LnX-0.63 = 55 – 61% enter = 33,
39% exit = 22
o Small retail/office – independent variable is 1000 square feet
▪ Morning Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic: T=1.43X = 4 - 74% enter = 3, 28% exit = 1
▪ Afternoon Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic: T=3.13X = 8 - 40% enter = 3, 60% exit = 5
All residential and office trips will be new to the street network, but some of the small retail trips will go to the site
while “passing by” and some trips will be internal. As discussed above, no internal or pass-by trip deductions
were taken in this study. All trips, therefore, are considered new to the network. The trip generation for this site
is shown in Table 2.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
9
Table 2
TRIP GENERATION
Multifamily Small Total

Trips
Retail/Office
Morning Peak Hour
Enter 2 11 16
Exit 5 32 38
Total 7 43 54
Afternoon Peak Hour
Enter 6 33 42
Exit 4 22 31
Total 10 55 73
Trip Distribution – Project trip distribution was estimated with knowledge of the destinations served in each
direction from the site. Academy to the west provides access to Clemson, Bon Secours downtown campus, and
Travelers Rest via US 25. Calhoun to the south provides access to Augusta Road and Mills Avenue which
connects to I-85 South. Academy to the east provides access to downtown, I-385, and I-85 North. This site trip
distribution used for this study:
- To/from the west on Academy = 20 percent
- To/from the east on Academy = 50 percent
- To/from the south on Calhoun = 30 percent
Trip Assignment - Peak hour site trips were assigned to the study intersections using the distribution discussed
above and are shown in Figure 6 for morning peak hour and in Figure 7 for afternoon peak hour.
2023 Build Volumes
The site trips were added to 2023 no build traffic to obtain the 2023 build peak hour traffic volumes shown in
Figure 8 for morning peak hour and in Figure 9 for afternoon peak hour.
Need for Turn Lanes
In general, it is desirable to have a left turn lane on the major street at a driveway or side street so that vehicles
stopped to turn left have a place to store outside the through lane. This arrangement reduces the potential for
rear end collisions. The provision of a right turn lane eliminates the delay that can result for through vehicles as
the right turn vehicles slow to make the turn. Right turn lanes also reduce the potential for rear end collisions.
The disadvantages of the additional lanes besides the construction cost are the right-of-way requirements,
maintenance costs, the additional run-off caused by a paved surface, and greater intersection width increasing
pedestrian crossing distance as well as the accident potential during construction.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
14
Because there are both advantages and disadvantages to the additional lanes, the lanes should be installed
where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The SCDOT Highway Design Manual, 2017 offers guidelines
for a two-lane highway with a speed of 40 miles per hour (lowest speed for which a graph is available): Figure
9.5G – Volume Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on Two-Lane Highways (40 mph).
This graph can be used as a guideline in this case and is included in Appendix C. Comparing the 2023 build
volumes to the graph indicates that left turn lanes are not necessary at any of the study intersections for Ware
Street Multifamily.
As for right turns, the SCDOT Design Manual, 2017 also offers Figure 9.5A – Guidelines for Right-Turn Lanes at
Unsignalized Intersections on Two-Lane Highways. That graph is intended for design speeds of 50 miles per
hour but can be used as a guideline and is included in Appendix C. Comparing the 2023 build volumes at the site
access to the graph indicates that right turn lanes are not necessary at any of the study intersections for Ware
Street Multifamily.
Traffic Operations
Synchro 10.1 is the software used for the traffic operations analyses in this study. The methodology used for
assessing the quality of traffic flow is the methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6,
Transportation Research Board. In general, the HCM expresses quality of flow in terms of Level of Service
(LOS). The types of transportation facilities which were examined in this study are the signalized and
unsignalized intersection. The LOS criteria for intersections are shown in Table 3. The variable used is control
delay. This is the delay attributed to traffic control measures and includes deceleration delay, queue move-up
time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. SCDOT uses a guideline of roadway LOS C or no change in
LOS if the baseline LOS is below C as not requiring mitigation. It is not unusual for an individual movement,
especially on a side street at an unsignalized intersection, to experience LOS E or F during the peak hour.
Table 3
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of Service Control Delay Range

(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection
A <10 <10
B >10 and <15 >10 and <20
C >15 and <25 >20 and <35
D >25 and <35 >35 and <55
E >35 and <50 >55 and <80
F >50 >80
The study intersections were analyzed for morning and afternoon peak hours with 2020 adjusted existing, 2023
no build, and 2023 build traffic volumes. Percentages of heavy vehicles, peak hour factors, and pedestrians were
taken from existing counts. Lane widths, storage lengths, and grades were measured on aerials. Signal timings
were obtained from the City of Greenville. Capacity analysis printouts are included in Appendix D.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
15
Academy Street/Calhoun Street – As shown in Table 4, this intersection currently operates acceptably and can
continue to do so with 2023 no build and 2023 build volumes.
Table 4
CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION – EXISTING GEOMETRY
ACADEMY STREET/CALHOUN STREET
Level of Service/Delay (seconds/vehicle)

Movement
Existing 2023 No Build 2023 Build
Morning Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left A/8 A/8 A/8
Through/right A/6 A/7 A/7
Westbound – Left B/10 B/11 B/12
Northbound – Left/through/right D/42 D/42 D/43
Southbound – Left/through/right D/48 D/48 D/48
Overall A/8 A/8 A/9
Afternoon Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left B/12 B/14 B/14
Westbound – Left A/6 A/6 A/7
Northbound – Left/through/right D/44 D/44 D/45
Southbound – Left/through/right D/47 D/47 D/47
Overall A/8 A/8 A/8
Notes:
- Academy is east-west. Calhoun is north-south.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
16
Calhoun Street/Perry Avenue – As shown in Table 5, this intersection currently operates acceptably and can
Table 5
CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS – UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION – EXISTING GEOMETRY
CALHOUN STREET/PERRY AVENUE

Movement
Morning Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left/through/right A/9 A/9 A/10
Westbound –Left/through/right A/9 A/9 A/9
Northbound – Left A/8 A/8 A/8
Southbound – Left A/8 A/8 A/8
Afternoon Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left/through/right A/10 A/10 A/10
Westbound –Left/through/right A/10 A/10 A/10
Northbound – Left A/7 A/7 A/7
Southbound – Left A/7 A/8 A/8
Notes:
- Perry is east-west. Calhoun is north-south.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
17
Calhoun Street/Pendleton Street – As shown in Table 6, this intersection currently operates acceptably and can
Table 6
CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION – EXISTING GEOMETRY
CALHOUN STREET/PENDLETON STREET

Movement
Morning Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left/through A/6 A/7 A/7
Westbound – Left/through A/6 A/6 A/6
Northbound – Left B/14 B/14 B/14
Through/right B/13 B/13 B/13
Southbound – Left B/14 B/14 B/14
Overall A/7 A/7 A/8
Afternoon Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left/through A/6 A/6 A/7
Westbound – Left/through A/6 A/6 A/6
Northbound – Left B/14 B/14 B/14
Southbound – Left B/14 B/14 B/14
Overall A/8 A/8 A/8
Notes:
- Pendleton is east-west. Calhoun is north-south.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
18
Perry Avenue/Memminger Street/Perry Eastern Access - As shown in Table 7, this intersection currently operates
acceptably and can continue to do so with 2023 no build and 2023 build volumes.
Table 7
CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS – UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
PERRY AVENUE/MEMMINGER STREET/PERRY EASTERN ACCESS

Movement
Existing Geometry Add Site Access
Morning Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left - - A/7
Northbound – Left/(thru)/right A/9 A/9 A/9
Southbound – Left/thru/right - - A/9
Afternoon Peak Hour
Eastbound – Left - - A/7
Northbound – Left/(thru)/right A/9 A/9 A/9
Southbound – Left/thru/right - - A/9
Notes:
- Perry is east-west. Memminger/site access is north-south.
Site Accesses – Single approach lanes were assumed on all site access approaches. As shown in Table 8, all
site accesses can operate acceptably with 2023 build volumes.
Table 8
CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS – UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION – 2023 BUILD VOLUMES
SITE ACCESSES
Movement Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour

LOS Delay LOS Delay
Calhoun Street/Calhoun Access
Westbound - Left/right A 9 A 9
Southbound - Left A 7 A 8
Perry Avenue/Perry Western Access
Eastbound - Left A 7 A 7
Southbound - Left/right A 8 A 8
Ware Street/Ware Access
Eastbound – Left/right A 8 A 8
Northbound - Left A 0 A 7
Notes:
- LOS = Level of Service; Delay is in seconds per vehicle.
- Calhoun access, Perry, and Ware access are east-west. Calhoun, Perry western access,
and Ware are north-south.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
19
Turn Lane Storage
While the LOS at an intersection can describe the basic operation of traffic, other factors influence that operation.
For instance, if turn queues extend past their storage, they can interrupt traffic flow. SIMTRAFFIC was run for
2020 adjusted existing, 2023 no build, and 2023 build volumes, and the 95th percentile queues for existing turn
lanes are shown in Table 9. The printouts are included in Appendix D. The queues in Table 9 indicate that
estimated queues for all volumes considered can be accommodated within the turn lane storage currently
provided.
Table 9
QUEUE AND STORAGE LENGTHS IN FEET
Intersection Turn SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue Existing Comments

Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Storage
Exist 2023 2023 Exist 2023 2023
No Build No Build
Build Build
Academy/Calhoun EB Left 94 77 78 80 85 90 150 OK

WB Left 69 58 70 41 65 62 200 OK
Calhoun/Pendleton NB Left 39 41 37 41 43 45 60 OK
SB Left 34 36 40 42 37 43 60 OK
Conclusions
- All study intersections currently operate acceptably and can continue to do so with 2023 no build
and 2023 build volumes. The turn lane storage provided at Academy/Calhoun and
Calhoun/Pendleton can accommodate 2023 build volumes.
- Neither left turn nor right turn lanes are necessary at the site accesses. The site access
intersections can operate acceptably with all one-lane approaches with 2023 build volumes.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A
SITE PLAN
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Information:
Site Area: +/- 4.51 Acres

Zoning: R-M2 & RDV | Proposed: PD
Allowable Density: R-M2 & RDV 20 units / acre = 89 Units
Legend:
1 Bedroom Apartment 70 Units
2 Bedroom Apartment 27 Units

UB UB
UB
3 Bedroom Apartment 5 Units UB UB UB
UF
DING 1
APT. BUIL
UE UA
Live / Work Apartment 3 Units LEASE
UE UA UA UA UA
GE
OFF.
BRID
Townhouse - A1 12 Units GS
ZA
PLA
AIL
Townhouse - A2 11 Units RAM
RET
P @6
.6%
Townhouse - A3 10 Units
2.5%
P @1
RAM
Total Units 138 Units
Non-Residential Uses: UC
LW
UD UC
Commercial/Retail 2,500 SF UC
LW
UC
2 UC
NG LW
UD I LDI
. BU UD
APT
UC
UD UC
UD
GS = Greenspace / Amenity Area UD
Apartment Building 1: 61,475 SF | 5-Story | 12,295 SF / FL

Apartment Building 2: 39,162 SF | 3-Story | 13,054 SF / FL
Parking Deck: +/-49,000 SF | 2.5 Levels | +/-19,500 / Level
Apartment Units:
A3
UA = 1 Bed Apartment: +/- 650 SF (25 Units)
A3
UB = 1 Bed Apartment: +/- 705 SF (30 Units) GS A3
UC = 1 Bed Apartment: +/- 805 SF (21 Units)

A3
A2
A2 A3
UD = 2 Bed Apartment: +/- 1,055 SF (18 Units) A2
A2
A2
A2
UE = 2 Bed Apartment: +/- 1,080 SF (9 Units) A2
A2 A3
A2
UF = 3 Bed Apartment: +/- 1,200 SF (5 Units) A2
A2
A3
LW = Live/work 1 Bed Apt: +/- 1,100 SF (3 Units) A3

A1
A1 A3
A1
A3
Townhomes: A1
A1 GS
A1 = Townhouse: +/- 1,800 SF | 3-Story | 2 Car Garage A1
A1
A1
A2 = Townhouse: +/- 1,450 SF | 3-Story | 2 Car Garage (T) A1
A1
A3 = Townhouse: +/- 1,150 SF | 2-Story | Surface Parking A1
A1
Parking:
Parking Deck: 108 Spaces
Surface Parking: 92 Spaces
Total Spaces: 200 Spaces
Apartments: 158 Spaces | 1.5 / unit | +1 / bedroom
Townhouse - A3: 20 Spaces | 2 / unit (surface parking)
Townhouse - A1 & A2: 2 / unit - Garage

Visitor: 22 Visitor Spaces
Land Use:
138 Units on +/- 4.51 acres = 30.6 units / acre
Architectural Site Plan

1” = 60’-0”
0 30 90
GENERAL NOTES KEY NOTES KEY PLAN SEALS designer JARED MOORE client Saint Capital
1. The contractor shall visit the site structural and architectural to construction are approximate and sloppy or improper work. other project. With the exception of common law copyright or other CREATIVE FOUNDER manager JM title Ware Street Redevelopment
DESIGN STUDIO
and thoroughly familiarize himself remain, and shall protect such are not purported to be correct. All Correction shall be the one contract set for each party to reserved rights. Copy right 2020
or herself with the existing work from damage during such dimensions and conditions responsibility of the contractor at the contract, such documents are Creative Founder - all rights production JM phase Schematic Design
conditions verifying that the work demolition and new construction. shall be field verified by the no costs to the owner. to be returned or suitably reserved.
can be performed as described in contractor prior to performing, accounted for to Creative Founder 141 Traction St, Suite 25
number - date 09/25/2020
these drawings, prior to submitting 3. The contractor shall verify all preparing shop drawings, or 5. All drawings, specifications and upon completion of the project. Greenville, SC 29611
a bid. dimensions prior to commencing ordering materials. copies thereof furnished by Submission or distribution to meet
construction. Any discrepancies Creative Founder are and shall official regulatory requirements or P: 803.422.1864 revision date number
2. Prior to commencing work, the shall be brought to the attention of 4. The contractor shall ask for details remain the property of Creative for other purposes in connection www.creativefounder.com
contractor shall locate all work to the designer for clarification. and/or instructions when uncertain Founder. These materials are to be with the project is not to be
Contact:
A1.0
remain, including, but not limited to Dimensions and conditions tying how to proceed. The lack of not used only with respect to this construed as publication in
plumbing, hvac, electrical, into or governed by existing requesting details does not excuse project and not to be used with any derogation of Creative Founder’s Jared Moore - Architect
[email protected] Architectural Site Plan
Appendix B
TRAFFIC COUNTS
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: N Calhoun St -- US 123 QC JOB #: 15295101
CITY/STATE: Greenville, SC DATE: Wed, Oct 7 2020
101 62 Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM 9.9 1.6

0.9
Peak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AM
71 28 2 12.7 3.6 0
881 52 0 833 4.4 1.9 0 3.7

0.88 1247 0.91 808 0.94 3.3 3.7
1302 3 25 1281 3.3 33.3 4 3.4
2 10 32 0 0 9.4
0.58
56 44 5.4 6.8
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count N Calhoun St N Calhoun St US 123 US 123

Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals
Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 1 2 5 0 1 2 6 0 5 196 0 0 4 158 0 0 380
7:15 AM 0 2 1 0 0 6 14 0 7 264 1 0 5 186 0 0 486
7:30 AM 1 5 13 0 1 5 20 0 12 355 2 0 4 210 0 0 628
7:45 AM 1 3 5 0 1 8 19 0 12 313 0 0 9 202 0 0 573 2067
8:00 AM 0 0 8 0 0 8 20 0 16 287 0 0 6 181 0 0 526 2213
8:15 AM 0 2 6 0 0 7 12 0 12 292 1 0 6 215 0 0 553 2280
8:30 AM 0 3 14 0 0 8 8 0 8 243 0 0 9 150 0 0 443 2095
8:45 AM 2 4 4 0 0 5 9 0 7 247 0 0 14 169 0 0 461 1983
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Flowrates Total
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
All Vehicles 4 20 52 0 4 20 80 0 48 1420 8 0 16 840 0 0 2512
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 44 4 4 28 0 84
Buses
Pedestrians 4 0 0 0 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 10/14/2020 7:35 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: N Calhoun St -- US 123 QC JOB #: 15295102
108 68 Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM 0.9 0

0.79
Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM
84 20 4 1.2 0 0
1396 48 0 1332 2.2 0 0 2.3

0.96 972 0.95 1305 0.91 2.1 2.3
1021 1 27 1028 2 0 3.7 1.9
6 21 52 0 0 0
0.6
48 79 2.1 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
2 0 0 0
0 0
2 0 3 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count N Calhoun St N Calhoun St US 123 US 123

Totals
4:00 PM 2 7 6 0 0 6 18 0 9 212 0 0 10 281 0 0 551
4:15 PM 2 6 15 0 0 15 26 0 19 199 0 0 11 274 0 0 567
4:30 PM 0 7 11 0 0 4 19 0 13 230 0 0 7 257 0 0 548
4:45 PM 0 1 10 0 0 7 13 0 18 237 0 0 2 291 0 0 579 2245
5:00 PM 3 8 22 0 2 4 28 0 13 251 1 0 10 294 0 0 636 2330
5:15 PM 2 5 9 0 1 7 17 0 12 246 0 1 7 358 0 0 665 2428
5:30 PM 0 4 12 0 1 4 20 0 11 249 0 0 7 340 0 0 648 2528
5:45 PM 1 4 9 0 0 5 19 0 11 226 0 0 3 313 0 0 591 2540
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 8 20 36 0 4 28 68 0 48 984 0 4 28 1432 0 0 2660
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 20 0 4 36 0 64
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: N Calhoun St -- Perry Ave QC JOB #: 15295103
68 42 Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM 2.9 7.1

0.81
Peak 15-Min: 8:30 AM -- 8:45 AM
1 63 4 0 1.6 25
3 3 7 7 33.3 0 14.3 14.3

0.58 1 0.78 0 0.44 0 0
7 3 0 4 0 0 0 25
3 31 0 33.3 6.5 0
0.85
67 34 1.5 8.8
4
0 0 0
0 0
0 2 0 0
0 0
4 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count N Calhoun St N Calhoun St Perry Ave Perry Ave

Totals
7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13
7:15 AM 0 1 3 0 0 10 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 18
7:30 AM 0 15 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 33
7:45 AM 0 7 0 0 1 19 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 30 94
8:00 AM 1 7 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 25 106
8:15 AM 1 8 0 1 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 24 112
8:30 AM 0 9 0 0 2 17 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 37 116
8:45 AM 0 7 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 22 108
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 0 36 0 0 8 68 4 4 8 0 4 0 0 0 16 0 148
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: N Calhoun St -- Perry Ave QC JOB #: 15295104
57 88 Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM 0 0

0.62
Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM
0 55 2 0 0 0
4 1 5 8 25 0 0 12.5
0.42 2 0.81 3 0.67 0 33.3
5 2 0 6 0 0 0 0
1 82 2 0 0 0
0.73
57 85 0 0
4
0 1 0
0 2
3 2 2 0
0 0
6 1 1 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count N Calhoun St N Calhoun St Perry Ave Perry Ave

Totals
4:00 PM 0 13 1 0 0 14 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 5 0 41
4:15 PM 1 20 1 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 48
4:30 PM 0 19 1 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 36
4:45 PM 0 14 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 24 149
5:00 PM 0 29 0 0 1 11 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 47 155
5:15 PM 0 14 0 0 2 12 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 1 0 38 145
5:30 PM 1 13 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 27 136
5:45 PM 0 14 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 27 139
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 4 80 4 0 4 88 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 192
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Calhoun St -- Pendleton St QC JOB #: 15295105
61 35 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 1.6 8.6

0.9
Peak 15-Min: 8:30 AM -- 8:45 AM
12 36 13 0 2.8 0
251 5 9 237 6.4 0 22.2 8

0.89 346 0.91 223 0.85 4.3 7.2
368 17 5 362 4.1 0 20 4.1
16 21 3 0 4.8 0
0.83
58 40 3.4 2.5
6
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0
5 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Calhoun St Calhoun St Pendleton St Pendleton St

Totals
7:00 AM 2 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 33 2 0 0 17 0 0 62
7:15 AM 3 2 0 0 4 5 2 0 2 52 0 0 0 34 0 0 104
7:30 AM 0 8 1 0 5 1 6 0 1 57 0 0 0 31 6 0 116
7:45 AM 1 6 2 0 7 9 5 0 0 84 2 0 0 48 3 0 167 449
8:00 AM 6 5 1 0 2 11 4 0 1 63 4 0 3 50 2 0 152 539
8:15 AM 3 8 1 0 1 9 2 0 0 90 8 0 0 67 3 0 192 627
8:30 AM 4 5 0 0 7 8 2 0 1 100 2 0 0 63 2 0 194 705
8:45 AM 3 3 1 0 3 8 4 0 3 93 3 0 2 43 2 0 168 706
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 16 20 0 0 28 32 8 0 4 400 8 0 0 252 8 0 776
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 8 0 32
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Calhoun St -- Pendleton St QC JOB #: 15295106
57 81 Peak-Hour: 4:15 PM -- 5:15 PM 0 0

0.65
Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM
4 35 18 0 0 0
335 17 18 329 2.1 0 0 2.1

0.86 279 0.93 305 0.83 3.9 2.3
311 15 6 306 3.5 0 0 3.6
26 46 9 0 0 0
0.72
56 81 0 0
1
0 1 0
0 1
0 3 2 0
0 0
2 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Calhoun St Calhoun St Pendleton St Pendleton St

Totals
4:00 PM 4 9 1 0 4 9 2 0 3 59 5 0 0 100 3 0 199
4:15 PM 5 10 5 0 8 11 3 0 5 69 3 0 1 84 6 0 210
4:30 PM 7 10 1 0 5 10 0 0 6 67 3 0 1 68 5 0 183
4:45 PM 5 7 3 0 0 7 1 0 2 81 7 0 1 61 3 0 178 770
5:00 PM 9 19 0 0 5 7 0 0 4 62 2 0 3 92 4 0 207 778
5:15 PM 8 7 1 0 3 13 0 0 4 63 2 0 0 84 6 0 191 759
5:30 PM 2 6 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 63 2 0 1 67 4 0 153 729
5:45 PM 4 6 2 0 3 6 1 0 3 58 4 0 1 69 6 0 163 714
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 20 40 20 0 32 44 12 0 20 276 12 0 4 336 24 0 840
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 40
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Memminger St -- Perry Ave QC JOB #: 15295107
0 0 Peak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM 0 0

0
Peak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 8 10 0 0 0
0.5 5 0.75 5 0.67 0 0
6 1 3 7 0 0 0 0
5 0 2 20 0 0
0.58
4 7 0 14.3
3
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
5 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Memminger St Memminger St Perry Ave Perry Ave

Totals
7:00 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 5
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
7:30 AM 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 7
7:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 21
8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17
8:15 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 16
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 15
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 16
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 12 0 0 28
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Memminger St -- Perry Ave QC JOB #: 15295108
0 0 Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM 0 0

0
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 19 0 0 0 0
0.5 5 0.82 9 0.95 0 0
8 3 10 8 0 0 0 0
6 0 3 0 0 0
0.56
13 9 0 0
2
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
10 2 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Memminger St Memminger St Perry Ave Perry Ave

Totals
4:00 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 9
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 5
4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4
4:45 PM 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 24
5:00 PM 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 11 26
5:15 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 0 11 32
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 7 35
5:45 PM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 36
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 12 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 16 0 0 44
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buses
Bicycles 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Westfield/Wardlaw St -- US 123 QC JOB #: 15295109
116 135 Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM 7.8 2.2

0.97
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
89 5 22 7.9 0 9.1
979 97 32 936 4.6 3.1 0 4.2

0.92 1343 0.93 888 0.94 3.1 4.3
1444 4 16 1375 3.2 25 6.3 3.2
2 6 10 0 0 0
0.64
25 18 8 0
0
1 0 0
0 0
2 2 0 0
0 0
3 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Westfield/Wardlaw St Westfield/Wardlaw St US 123 US 123

Totals
7:00 AM 3 0 4 0 6 1 21 0 16 221 2 0 1 173 7 0 455
7:15 AM 0 2 2 0 4 3 13 0 21 261 0 0 1 199 11 0 517
7:30 AM 1 2 1 0 6 0 24 0 42 349 0 0 3 219 19 0 666
7:45 AM 1 2 4 0 7 0 23 0 28 358 1 0 2 241 6 0 673 2311
8:00 AM 0 1 2 0 3 2 22 0 20 314 1 0 4 208 2 0 579 2435
8:15 AM 0 1 3 0 6 3 20 0 7 322 2 0 7 220 5 0 596 2514
8:30 AM 1 1 3 0 2 5 24 0 9 278 1 0 4 181 6 0 515 2363
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 1 24 0 11 237 2 0 3 192 2 0 474 2164
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 4 8 16 0 28 0 92 0 112 1432 4 0 8 964 24 0 2692
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 36 0 0 36 0 84
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Westfield/Wardlaw St -- US 123 QC JOB #: 15295110
192 142 Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM 1.6 0

0.87
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
158 18 16 1.9 0 0
1551 90 31 1436 2.3 0 0 2.3

0.89 1094 0.97 1385 0.94 1.8 2.4
1187 3 20 1131 1.7 0 0 1.8
8 21 21 0 0 0
0.83
41 50 0 0
1
0 1 0
0 0
3 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Westfield/Wardlaw St Westfield/Wardlaw St US 123 US 123

Totals
4:00 PM 1 5 1 0 11 4 23 0 21 214 1 0 6 270 7 0 564
4:15 PM 2 2 1 0 6 5 27 0 11 262 2 0 3 294 9 0 624
4:30 PM 1 3 0 0 5 1 23 0 17 248 1 0 2 274 3 0 578
4:45 PM 0 1 6 0 6 2 23 0 20 253 1 0 3 271 4 0 590 2356
5:00 PM 4 3 8 0 2 7 46 0 22 310 1 0 8 321 8 0 740 2532
5:15 PM 2 5 5 0 5 3 36 0 19 254 1 0 2 371 10 0 713 2621
5:30 PM 1 5 4 0 2 5 48 0 30 286 1 0 4 342 7 0 735 2778
5:45 PM 1 8 4 0 7 3 28 0 19 244 0 0 6 351 6 0 677 2865
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 16 12 32 0 8 28 184 0 88 1240 4 0 32 1284 32 0 2960
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 28 0 48
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Wardlaw St -- S Academy St QC JOB #: 14967201
CITY/STATE: Greenville, SC DATE: Tue, Apr 30 2019
166 315 Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM 0 1

0.8
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
95 52 19 0 0 0
1038 148 110 1086 2.4 0 0.9 2.6

0.97 1651 0.98 939 0.95 1.9 2.7
1804 5 37 1713 1.7 0 5.4 1.8
4 57 43 0 3.5 0
0.87
94 104 2.1 1.9
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0
2 0 0 0
NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
15-Min Count Wardlaw St Wardlaw St S Academy St S Academy St

Totals
7:00 AM 0 4 6 0 6 4 17 0 11 274 4 0 2 169 8 0 505
7:15 AM 2 11 6 0 8 11 24 0 32 395 1 0 5 231 25 0 751
7:30 AM 0 17 10 0 3 2 24 0 47 409 1 0 10 230 38 0 791
7:45 AM 2 21 7 0 8 19 20 0 53 413 1 0 4 228 30 0 806 2853
8:00 AM 1 13 11 0 3 10 25 0 23 422 1 0 8 256 22 0 795 3143
8:15 AM 1 6 15 0 5 21 26 0 25 407 2 0 15 225 20 0 768 3160
8:30 AM 3 8 7 0 3 14 17 0 14 368 2 0 14 263 10 0 723 3092
8:45 AM 1 5 5 0 4 13 23 0 12 315 0 0 8 261 10 0 657 2943
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 8 84 28 0 32 76 80 0 212 1652 4 0 16 912 120 0 3224
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 12 0 36
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Report generated on 5/9/2019 5:00 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
LOCATION: Wardlaw St -- S Academy St QC JOB #: 14967202
CITY/STATE: Greenville, SC DATE: Tue, Apr 30 2019
243 185 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 1.6 0

0.71
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
160 43 40 1.9 0 2.5
1647 104 48 1551 1.2 0 0 1

0.87 1294 0.9 1469 0.98 1.4 1
1406 8 34 1401 1.3 0 0 1.4
18 33 67 5.6 0 0
0.84
85 118 0 0.8
1
0 1 0
0 0
1 5 0 0
0 0
2 0 2 0
NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
15-Min Count Wardlaw St Wardlaw St S Academy St S Academy St

Totals
4:00 PM 3 9 24 0 8 10 26 0 18 296 1 0 8 301 6 0 710
4:15 PM 2 12 6 0 7 5 24 0 22 297 2 0 7 332 4 0 720
4:30 PM 4 5 12 0 12 10 22 0 25 314 2 0 11 319 11 0 747
4:45 PM 9 5 21 0 11 10 29 0 24 320 2 0 6 358 11 0 806 2983
5:00 PM 2 11 20 0 17 13 56 0 31 371 4 0 10 370 16 0 921 3194
5:15 PM 5 8 12 0 6 10 43 0 25 343 1 0 10 367 13 0 843 3317
5:30 PM 2 9 14 0 6 10 32 0 24 260 1 0 8 374 8 0 748 3318
5:45 PM 3 6 9 0 6 13 25 0 24 230 3 0 9 375 6 0 709 3221
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 8 44 80 0 68 52 224 0 124 1484 16 0 40 1480 64 0 3684
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 16 0 28
Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Comments:
Report generated on 5/9/2019 5:00 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Appendix C
SCDOT TURN LANE GUIDELINE GRAPHS
(Source: South Carolina Highway Design Manual 2003)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix D
CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND QUEUE PRINTOUTS
__________________________________________________________________________________________
3: Calhoun Street & Academy Street AM Peak Hour
Ware Street Multifamily Existing
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 1584 4 32 1026 0 3 13 41 3 36 90
Future Volume (veh/h) 66 1584 4 32 1026 0 3 13 41 3 36 90
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 2027 2012 1562 1817 1817 1876 2221 2221 2081 1952 1890 1751
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 73 1741 4 35 1127 0 3 14 45 3 40 99
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 3 33 4 4 0 0 0 9 0 4 13
Cap, veh/h 430 3029 7 230 2673 0 41 55 156 37 54 126
Arrive On Green 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 542 3913 9 268 3543 0 34 510 1439 12 495 1168
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 850 895 35 1127 0 62 0 0 142 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 542 1912 2011 268 1726 0 1983 0 0 1675 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 18.5 18.5 6.2 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.5 18.5 18.5 24.7 11.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.73 0.02 0.70
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 430 1480 1556 230 2673 0 252 0 0 217 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.57 0.57 0.15 0.42 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 430 1480 1556 230 2673 0 553 0 0 478 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.6 4.7 4.7 9.7 3.9 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 44.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 5.4 5.6 0.3 2.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.5 6.3 6.2 10.0 4.0 0.0 42.4 0.0 0.0 47.6 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A B A A D A A D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1818 1162 62 142
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.3 4.2 42.4 47.6
Approach LOS A A D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 85.0 17.0 85.0 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 63.0 27.0 63.0 27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.5 10.4 26.7 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.3 0.7 11.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1
HCM 6th LOS A
WSamex.syn Synchro 10 Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
11: Calhoun Street & Pendleton Street AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Cap, veh/h 98 1689 83 102 1623 62 391 297 40 412 245 77
Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 11 3373 166 16 3240 123 1285 1495 199 1274 1234 387
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 270 0 243 173 0 157 22 0 34 19 0 67
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 3.4 2.1 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 1.4
Prop In Lane 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.08 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.24
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.29 0.18 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1029 0 841 1411 0 1207 1101 0 1273 1117 0 1218
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A B A B B A B
Approach LOS A A B B
HCM 6th LOS A

GGS 102120 Page 2
8: Calhoun Street & Perry Avenue AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1 4 0 0 9 4 39 0 5 80 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 1 4 0 0 9 4 39 0 5 80 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - -1 - - 1 - - -3 - - 4 -
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 14 33 7 0 25 2 0
Mvmt Flow 5 1 5 0 0 12 5 50 0 6 103 1
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2

Conflicting Flow All 186 178 108 185 178 56 104 0 0 52 0 0
Stage 1 116 116 - 62 62 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 70 62 - 123 116 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.3 6.7 6.44 4.43 - - 4.35 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 5.3 - 6.3 5.7 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.426 2.497 - - 2.425 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 787 726 954 772 712 976 1315 - - 1419 - -
Stage 1 899 809 - 951 844 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 949 850 - 880 798 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 769 719 949 757 705 969 1315 - - 1416 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 769 719 - 757 705 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 895 806 - 945 839 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 930 845 - 866 795 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 8.8 0.7 0.4
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1315 - - 833 969 1416 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.014 0.012 0.005 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - 9.4 8.8 7.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 1
16: Memminger Street & Perry Avenue AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 4 6 6 3
Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 4 6 6 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - -2 -3 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 20 0
Mvmt Flow 8 1 5 8 8 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1

Conflicting Flow All 0 0 9 0 27 9
Stage 1 - - - - 9 -
Stage 2 - - - - 18 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6 5.9
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.68 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1624 - 948 1079
Stage 1 - - - - 971 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1624 - 945 1079
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 945 -
Stage 1 - - - - 971 -
Stage 2 - - - - 960 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.9 8.7
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT

Capacity (veh/h) 986 - - 1624 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.003 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - 7.2 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -

GGS 102120 Page 2
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak Hour
Intersection: 3: Calhoun Street & Academy Street

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 174 240 223 120 190 157 92 148
Average Queue (ft) 36 110 93 22 72 44 37 60
95th Queue (ft) 94 197 181 69 134 108 77 116
Link Distance (ft) 1179 1179 1204 1204 223 988
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0
Intersection: 11: Calhoun Street & Pendleton Street

Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT TR LT TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 81 107 72 40 52 42 79
Average Queue (ft) 73 26 49 18 14 19 11 30
95th Queue (ft) 124 63 92 56 39 46 34 63
Link Distance (ft) 478 478 427 427 478 392
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSamex.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Intersection: 8: Calhoun Street & Perry Avenue

Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 63 10
Average Queue (ft) 7 9 1
95th Queue (ft) 26 37 8
Link Distance (ft) 380 157 400
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Intersection: 16: Memminger Street & Perry Avenue

Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 10 62
Average Queue (ft) 0 11
95th Queue (ft) 5 40
Link Distance (ft) 421 386
Zone Summary
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSamex.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Ware Street Multifamily 2023 No Build
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Cap, veh/h 414 3020 7 218 2664 0 41 56 160 37 55 130
Arrive On Green 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 524 3914 9 255 3543 0 33 502 1447 12 493 1170
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 876 921 36 1162 0 63 0 0 146 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 19.7 19.7 7.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.7 19.7 19.7 26.8 11.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.73 0.02 0.70
V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.59 0.59 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 414 1475 1551 218 2664 0 552 0 0 478 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 1.8 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS A
WSamnb.syn Synchro 10 Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Cap, veh/h 98 1684 84 101 1621 60 392 301 39 414 249 77
Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 11 3371 168 16 3245 119 1284 1502 194 1273 1240 382
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 279 0 250 179 0 161 23 0 35 20 0 68
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 3.5 2.2 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.0 1.4
Prop In Lane 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.07 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.24
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.30 0.18 0.00 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1027 0 839 1408 0 1204 1097 0 1271 1112 0 1216
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3
HCM 6th LOS A

GGS 102120 Page 2
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1 4 0 0 9 4 40 0 5 82 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 1 4 0 0 9 4 40 0 5 82 1
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade, % - -1 - - 1 - - -3 - - 4 -
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 14 33 7 0 25 2 0
Mvmt Flow 5 1 5 0 0 12 5 51 0 6 105 1

Stage 1 118 118 - 63 63 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 71 63 - 125 118 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.3 6.7 6.44 4.43 - - 4.35 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.426 2.497 - - 2.425 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 784 724 952 769 709 975 1313 - - 1417 - -
Stage 1 897 807 - 950 843 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 948 849 - 878 797 - - - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 766 716 947 754 701 968 1313 - - 1414 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 766 716 - 754 701 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 893 803 - 944 838 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 929 844 - 863 793 - - - - - - -
HCM LOS A A
Capacity (veh/h) 1313 - - 830 968 1414 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.014 0.012 0.005 - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 1
16: Memminger Street & Perry Avenue AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Grade, % 0 - - -2 -3 -
Mvmt Flow 8 1 5 8 8 4

Stage 1 - - - - 9 -
Stage 2 - - - - 18 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6 5.9
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.68 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1624 - 948 1079
Stage 1 - - - - 971 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1624 - 945 1079
Stage 1 - - - - 971 -
Stage 2 - - - - 960 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS A

Capacity (veh/h) 986 - - 1624 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.003 -

GGS 102120 Page 2

Maximum Queue (ft) 117 242 222 70 166 162 93 168
Average Queue (ft) 35 111 99 25 75 49 38 62
95th Queue (ft) 77 195 194 58 133 113 73 129
Link Distance (ft) 1179 1179 1204 1204 223 988
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0

Maximum Queue (ft) 147 76 112 51 54 53 48 81
Average Queue (ft) 65 27 52 13 13 18 10 28
95th Queue (ft) 118 65 102 40 41 44 36 61
Link Distance (ft) 478 478 427 427 478 392
Zone Summary
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSamnb.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1

Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR

Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 53
Average Queue (ft) 9
95th Queue (ft) 35
Link Distance (ft) 386
Zone Summary
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSamnb.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Ware Street Multifamily 2023 Build
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Cap, veh/h 414 3013 12 217 2663 0 50 46 165 37 55 130
Arrive On Green 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 524 3906 15 254 3543 0 99 413 1490 12 493 1170
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 877 923 45 1162 0 90 0 0 146 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 19.8 19.8 9.3 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.7 19.8 19.8 29.1 11.8 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.74 0.02 0.70
V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.59 0.60 0.21 0.44 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 414 1475 1550 217 2663 0 549 0 0 478 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 1.8 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS A
WSamyb.syn Synchro 10 Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Cap, veh/h 98 1671 83 100 1593 73 395 310 40 420 240 92
Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 13 3368 167 15 3211 148 1279 1502 194 1273 1163 447
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 279 0 251 180 0 163 23 0 35 29 0 72
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 3.6 2.3 0.0 2.3 2.1 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.0 1.5
Prop In Lane 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.09 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.28
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.22
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1019 0 833 1398 0 1192 1083 0 1262 1105 0 1198
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3
HCM 6th LOS A

GGS 102120 Page 2
6: Calhoun Street & Calhoun Access AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - -6 - - 6
Mvmt Flow 7 15 75 3 7 86
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2

Stage 1 77 - - - - -
Stage 2 100 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 817 990 - - 1533 -
Stage 1 951 - - - - -
Stage 2 929 - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 813 990 - - 1533 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 813 - - - - -
Stage 1 951 - - - - -
Stage 2 924 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 0.5
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT

Capacity (veh/h) - - 929 1533 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.024 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -

GGS 102120 Page 1
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1 4 5 0 19 4 43 1 9 88 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 1 4 5 0 19 4 43 1 9 88 1
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade, % - -1 - - 1 - - -3 - - 4 -
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 14 33 7 0 25 2 0
Mvmt Flow 5 1 5 6 0 24 5 55 1 12 113 1

Stage 1 138 138 - 68 68 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 82 68 - 145 138 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.3 6.7 6.44 4.43 - - 4.35 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.426 2.497 - - 2.425 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 749 702 942 739 686 968 1303 - - 1411 - -
Stage 1 877 792 - 944 839 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 936 845 - 856 780 - - - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 719 691 938 722 676 961 1303 - - 1408 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 719 691 - 722 676 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 873 785 - 938 834 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 904 840 - 838 773 - - - - - - -
HCM LOS A A
Capacity (veh/h) 1303 - - 798 899 1408 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.014 0.034 0.008 - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.1 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 2
14: Perry Avenue & Perry eastern
we access AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Mvmt Flow 4 10 18 0 0 13

Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 36 18
Stage 1 - - - - 18 -
Stage 2 - - - - 18 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1612 - - - 982 1066
Stage 1 - - - - 1010 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1010 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1612 - - - 980 1066
Stage 1 - - - - 1008 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1010 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1

Capacity (veh/h) 1612 - - - 1066
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 - - 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0

GGS 102120 Page 3
16: Memminger Street/Perry Eastern Access & Perry Avenue AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 6 1 1 4 6 6 2 3 0 2 5
Future Vol, veh/h 2 6 1 1 4 6 6 2 3 0 2 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - -2 - - -3 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 8 1 1 5 8 8 3 4 0 3 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2

Stage 1 - - - - - - 15 15 - 11 11 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 16 15 - 18 15 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 6.7 5.9 5.9 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 5.7 4.9 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.68 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1619 - - 1624 - - 938 871 1079 985 871 1079
Stage 1 - - - - - - 963 889 - 1015 890 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 962 889 - 1006 887 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1619 - - 1624 - - 928 868 1079 977 868 1079
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 928 868 - 977 868 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 961 887 - 1013 889 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 952 888 - 997 885 -
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 952 1619 - - 1624 - - 1009
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.002 - - 0.001 - - 0.009
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 7.2 0 - 7.2 0 - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0

GGS 102120 Page 4
20: Ware Street & Ware access AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Grade, % 0 - - -3 3 -
Mvmt Flow 0 1 0 3 3 0

Conflicting Flow All 6 3 3 0 - 0
Stage 1 3 - - - - -
Stage 2 3 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 1087 1632 - - -
Stage 1 1025 - - - - -
Stage 2 1025 - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 1087 1632 - - -
Stage 1 1025 - - - - -
Stage 2 1025 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.3 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR

Capacity (veh/h) 1632 - 1087 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 5

Maximum Queue (ft) 118 308 269 95 184 144 120 209
Average Queue (ft) 35 124 101 30 85 58 52 72
95th Queue (ft) 78 224 204 70 157 121 102 150
Link Distance (ft) 1179 1179 1204 1204 223 988
Intersection: 6: Calhoun Street & Calhoun Access

Movement WB
95th Queue (ft) 39

Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 71 10 17
Average Queue (ft) 7 20 0 1
95th Queue (ft) 24 54 6 9
Link Distance (ft) 380 157 392 400
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSamyb.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1

Maximum Queue (ft) 117 82 133 89 42 69 48 67
Average Queue (ft) 74 26 57 19 13 20 14 27
95th Queue (ft) 113 61 103 59 37 51 40 57
Link Distance (ft) 478 478 427 427 478 392
Intersection: 14: Perry Avenue & Perry eastern access

Movement SB
95th Queue (ft) 30
Intersection: 16: Memminger Street/Perry Eastern Access & Perry Avenue

Movement NB SB

GGS 102120 Page 2
Intersection: 20: Ware Street & Ware access

Movement EB
95th Queue (ft) 11
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2

GGS 102120 Page 3
3: Calhoun Street & Academy Street PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cap, veh/h 275 3069 3 379 2727 0 45 64 137 39 36 139
Arrive On Green 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 347 3949 3 454 3601 0 66 608 1306 26 346 1321
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 584 614 34 1607 0 97 0 0 132 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 9.9 9.9 2.6 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.8 9.9 9.9 12.5 19.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.07 0.66 0.04 0.78
V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.59 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 275 1497 1575 379 2727 0 548 0 0 483 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A A A A A D A A D A A
HCM 6th LOS A
WSpmex.syn Synchro 10 Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
11: Calhoun Street & Pendleton Street PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Cap, veh/h 138 1592 84 100 1626 96 422 306 63 397 323 37
Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 80 3231 170 16 3301 195 1301 1447 299 1229 1526 173
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 0 187 219 0 196 32 0 70 23 0 49
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.8 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 2.6 2.7 0.0 2.8 1.8 0.0 1.3 2.0 0.0 1.0
Prop In Lane 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.12 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.10
V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.00 0.23 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.08 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 988 0 825 1449 0 1228 1109 0 1290 1045 0 1256
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2
HCM 6th LOS A

GGS 102120 Page 2
8: Calhoun Street & Perry Avenue PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 2 2 0 4 6 1 96 2 2 64 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 2 2 0 4 6 1 96 2 2 64 0
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade, % - -1 - - 1 - - -3 - - 4 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 1 2 2 0 5 7 1 119 2 2 79 0

Stage 1 86 86 - 124 124 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 132 125 - 91 86 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.3 7.03 6.3 4.1 - - 4.1 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4.297 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 752 698 978 737 629 927 1528 - - 1477 - -
Stage 1 931 831 - 879 732 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 883 802 - 917 763 - - - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 735 693 968 725 625 921 1523 - - 1474 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 735 693 - 725 625 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 927 828 - 876 730 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 865 800 - 905 760 - - - - - - -
HCM LOS A A
Capacity (veh/h) 1523 - - 792 774 1474 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.008 0.016 0.002 - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 1
16: Memminger Street & Perry Avenue PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Grade, % 0 - - -2 -3 -
Mvmt Flow 7 5 15 13 9 5

Stage 1 - - - - 20 -
Stage 2 - - - - 43 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 5.8 5.9
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1607 - 958 1065
Stage 1 - - - - 1011 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1590 - 939 1054
Stage 1 - - - - 1001 -
Stage 2 - - - - 982 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS A

Capacity (veh/h) 978 - - 1590 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - 0.009 -

GGS 102120 Page 2
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak Hour

Maximum Queue (ft) 91 151 144 51 216 217 117 139
Average Queue (ft) 40 87 62 16 113 87 47 50
95th Queue (ft) 80 152 129 41 187 174 91 101
Link Distance (ft) 1179 1179 1204 1204 223 988

Maximum Queue (ft) 117 70 110 59 50 58 54 79
Average Queue (ft) 58 18 60 22 15 28 14 23
95th Queue (ft) 100 50 101 51 41 53 42 57
Link Distance (ft) 478 478 427 427 478 392
Zone Summary
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSpmex.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1

Movement EB WB SB
95th Queue (ft) 18 40 13

Movement NB
95th Queue (ft) 30
Zone Summary
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSpmex.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cap, veh/h 260 3060 2 366 2719 0 45 66 141 39 38 142
Arrive On Green 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 331 3949 3 438 3601 0 63 610 1308 25 349 1320
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 601 633 35 1656 0 100 0 0 136 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 10.4 10.4 2.9 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.4 10.4 10.4 13.3 20.5 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.07 0.66 0.04 0.78
V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.61 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 1492 1570 366 2719 0 549 0 0 483 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS A
WSpmnb.syn Synchro 10 Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Cap, veh/h 138 1584 85 99 1622 97 423 311 62 397 326 36
Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 82 3221 174 16 3299 197 1300 1456 291 1227 1530 170
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 211 0 193 225 0 203 33 0 72 24 0 50
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.9 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 2.7 2.8 0.0 2.9 1.8 0.0 1.4 2.0 0.0 1.0
Prop In Lane 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.12 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.10
V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 985 0 823 1446 0 1225 1105 0 1289 1040 0 1253
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2
HCM 6th LOS A

GGS 102120 Page 2
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 2 2 0 4 6 1 99 2 2 66 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 2 2 0 4 6 1 99 2 2 66 0
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade, % - -1 - - 1 - - -3 - - 4 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 1 2 2 0 5 7 1 122 2 2 81 0

Stage 1 88 88 - 127 127 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 135 128 - 93 88 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.3 7.03 6.3 4.1 - - 4.1 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4.297 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 746 694 976 731 624 923 1526 - - 1473 - -
Stage 1 929 830 - 875 730 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 880 800 - 914 762 - - - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 729 689 966 719 620 917 1521 - - 1470 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 729 689 - 719 620 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 925 827 - 872 728 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 862 798 - 902 759 - - - - - - -
HCM LOS A A
Capacity (veh/h) 1521 - - 788 770 1470 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.008 0.016 0.002 - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 1
16: Memminger Street & Perry Avenue PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Grade, % 0 - - -2 -3 -
Mvmt Flow 7 5 15 13 9 5

Stage 1 - - - - 20 -
Stage 2 - - - - 43 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 5.8 5.9
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1607 - 958 1065
Stage 1 - - - - 1011 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1590 - 939 1054
Stage 1 - - - - 1001 -
Stage 2 - - - - 982 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS A

Capacity (veh/h) 978 - - 1590 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - 0.009 -

GGS 102120 Page 2

Maximum Queue (ft) 126 171 156 118 256 264 102 165
Average Queue (ft) 38 88 61 22 121 103 49 60
95th Queue (ft) 85 151 125 65 206 204 89 129
Link Distance (ft) 1179 1179 1204 1204 223 988

Maximum Queue (ft) 141 97 108 59 48 52 48 53
Average Queue (ft) 61 24 59 18 17 29 13 26
95th Queue (ft) 110 65 102 48 43 51 37 54
Link Distance (ft) 478 478 427 427 478 392
Zone Summary
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSpmnb.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1

Movement EB WB

Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Zone Summary
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSpmnb.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cap, veh/h 260 3042 17 363 2719 0 50 57 146 39 38 142
Arrive On Green 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 331 3927 22 436 3601 0 107 530 1355 25 349 1320
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 605 635 57 1656 0 122 0 0 136 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 10.5 10.5 5.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.4 10.5 10.5 15.6 20.5 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.68 0.04 0.78
V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.61 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 1492 1568 363 2719 0 546 0 0 483 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS A
WSpmyb.syn Synchro 10 Report

GGS 102120 Page 1
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Cap, veh/h 144 1568 85 99 1574 133 423 314 63 400 309 55
Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 93 3200 173 15 3212 271 1297 1456 291 1227 1429 254
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 212 0 194 231 0 207 33 0 72 30 0 53
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.9 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 2.7 2.9 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 1.4 2.2 0.0 1.0
Prop In Lane 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.16 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.15
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.23 0.00 0.26 0.08 0.00 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 976 0 820 1442 0 1211 1096 0 1285 1037 0 1237
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2
HCM 6th LOS A

GGS 102120 Page 2
6: Calhoun Street & Calhoun Access PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Future Vol, veh/h 6 12 104 7 16 69
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - -6 - - 6
Mvmt Flow 6 13 109 7 17 73

Stage 1 113 - - - - -
Stage 2 107 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 773 945 - - 1485 -
Stage 1 917 - - - - -
Stage 2 922 - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 764 945 - - 1485 -
Stage 1 917 - - - - -
Stage 2 911 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 0 1.4
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT

Capacity (veh/h) - - 876 1485 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.022 0.011 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.2 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -

GGS 102120 Page 1
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 2 2 2 4 14 1 106 7 13 72 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 2 2 2 4 14 1 106 7 13 72 0
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade, % - -1 - - 1 - - -3 - - 4 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 1 2 2 2 5 17 1 131 9 16 89 0

Stage 1 124 124 - 140 140 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 153 144 - 129 124 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.3 7.03 6.3 4.1 - - 4.1 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4.297 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 690 651 966 677 583 907 1515 - - 1453 - -
Stage 1 891 803 - 861 720 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 861 788 - 873 732 - - - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 660 639 956 661 573 901 1510 - - 1450 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 660 639 - 661 573 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 887 791 - 858 718 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 834 786 - 851 721 - - - - - - -
HCM LOS A A
Capacity (veh/h) 1510 - - 742 783 1450 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.008 0.032 0.011 - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.1 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 2
14: Perry Avenue & Perry western access PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Mvmt Flow 11 16 17 0 0 7

Conflicting Flow All 17 0 - 0 55 17
Stage 1 - - - - 17 -
Stage 2 - - - - 38 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1613 - - - 958 1068
Stage 1 - - - - 1011 -
Stage 2 - - - - 990 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1613 - - - 951 1068
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 990 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1

Capacity (veh/h) 1613 - - - 1068
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.007
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 - - 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0

GGS 102120 Page 3
16: Memminger Street/Perry eastern access & Perry Avenue PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 6 4 12 11 0 7 2 5 0 2 4
Future Vol, veh/h 7 6 4 12 11 0 7 2 5 0 2 4
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - -2 - - -3 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 9 7 5 15 13 0 9 2 6 0 2 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2

Stage 1 - - - - - - 38 38 - 45 45 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 47 45 - 32 40 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 6.5 5.9 5.9 7.1 6.5 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1616 - - 1607 - - 919 822 1065 917 809 1070
Stage 1 - - - - - - 989 873 - 974 861 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 979 868 - 990 866 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1613 - - 1592 - - 893 800 1055 898 787 1068
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 893 800 - 898 787 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 974 859 - 966 852 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 963 858 - 976 852 -
HCM Control Delay, s 3 3.8 8.9 8.8
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 929 1613 - - 1592 - - 954
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 0.005 - - 0.009 - - 0.008
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 7.2 0 - 7.3 0 - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0

GGS 102120 Page 4
20: Ware Street & Ware access PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Grade, % 0 - - -3 3 -
Mvmt Flow 0 1 1 2 2 0

Conflicting Flow All 6 2 2 0 - 0
Stage 1 2 - - - - -
Stage 2 4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 1088 1634 - - -
Stage 1 1026 - - - - -
Stage 2 1024 - - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1020 1088 1634 - - -
Stage 1 1025 - - - - -
Stage 2 1024 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.3 2.4 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR

Capacity (veh/h) 1634 - 1088 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 8.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -

GGS 102120 Page 5

Maximum Queue (ft) 98 201 186 74 226 199 139 155
Average Queue (ft) 42 92 70 27 117 97 57 56
95th Queue (ft) 90 167 148 62 197 179 105 115
Link Distance (ft) 1179 1179 1204 1204 223 988
Intersection: 6: Calhoun Street & Calhoun Access

Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT

Movement EB WB SB
95th Queue (ft) 19 37 15
C:\Users\cjoel\Documents\1 S&S Projects 2020\Ware Street Multifamily\WSMF Syn\WSpmyb.syn SimTraffic Report

GGS 102120 Page 1

Maximum Queue (ft) 144 65 113 83 53 67 54 52
Average Queue (ft) 64 21 56 21 19 30 15 23
95th Queue (ft) 112 53 96 60 45 54 43 52
Link Distance (ft) 478 478 427 427 478 392
Intersection: 14: Perry Avenue & Perry western access

Movement SB
95th Queue (ft) 21
Intersection: 16: Memminger Street/Perry eastern access & Perry Avenue

Movement EB NB SB
95th Queue (ft) 5 33 19

GGS 102120 Page 2
Intersection: 20: Ware Street & Ware access

Movement EB
95th Queue (ft) 10
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1

GGS 102120 Page 3
Previous
Public Comment
Kevin R. Howard
From: C.Christen Palombo <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 3:22 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard
Cc: Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Ken Gibson; Jonathan B. Graham; Shannon Lavrin; Ian
Thomas; Anthony Thompson
Subject: Fwd: Z-13-2020 PC Panel Informal Review
attachments.
Dear Mr. Howard and City Council Members,

I have sent letters to the city council and to those deemed as to care about our West End neighborhood and the Ware St.
Project. I am writing you to add my total agreement to the letter sent by Lois Ordway, which is attached below, as I couldn’t
say it any better. Please don’t make all our efforts related to this project go in the trash.
Sincerely, Christen Palombo - 15 N.LEACH ST.
Dear Mr. Howard,
Two days! The applicant has two months for this particular redesign, and the
neighborhood that has to live with it has two days to review and respond?
“Typically”? Does that mean there are no guidelines in the ordinance for such a
situation? If that is so, there’s a hole in the ordinance, one big enough to ram a 138 unit
development into the West End.
I object in the strongest terms possible that this is completely unfair to the existing
neighborhoods, and very much favors a developer that yet to answer questions we
posed back in August, obfuscating, stonewalling and outright lying.
Any rezone request that has such an impact on a residential area needs to be more
evenhanded, and the ordinance rewritten so that the deck is stacked against us.
Sincerely,
Lois Ordway
Sent from my iPad
1
Mr. Kevin Howard
Senior Development Planner
Greenville Planning Commission December 9, 2020
Mr. Howard and Planning Commissioners,
As a speaker at the November meeting regarding the Planned Development zoning proposed for the
West End neighborhood, I found myself striving to sincerely convey the deep passion that I feel as
a West End resident. I’d like to share the reason for my passion to protect our neighborhood.
We purchased a “tear down” house on Rhett Street in 2012 and thoughtfully restored it over a two-
year period to ultimately become our present home. Eight years ago this area was shockingly
different. It was a not-so-safe place. We had building materials stolen, muggings were a common
occurrence in the Pendleton Street parking lot, and almost every morning work on our house had to
begin with clearing out the homeless who had spent the night there. Many times we thought we had
made a huge mistake to purchase this house, but after two years the house was finished.
For our efforts, we were nominated for the Greater Greenville Association of Realtors
Revitalization Award. After submitting our application a committee of Realtors came by to see our
home. Several weeks later, lo and behold, we were awarded First Place! When our story was told
and photos shown at the Realtors’ Holiday Meeting at the Poinsett Club, the award was explained
to those in attendance. In a nutshell, it was for ‘taking the biggest RISK, and it turning out well’.
Thank goodness it did, but that encapsulates the West End neighborhood only six years ago; a
RISKY place to invest money.
After moving in, we were invited to the West End Neighborhood Association and attended a
meeting. Warmly welcomed by the very small number in attendance, we began our friendship with
Diane Keller, Sloan Sitton, Gloria D’oyley, Rev. James Arnold and others. All agreed that we
wanted to see neighbors connect with each other and grow together. To be honest, I had been afraid
to walk down McCall Street, but now that I had three new friends who lived there it became a lot
more comfortable. The saying:“ If you don’t know your neighbors, it’s just a Hood” certainly is
true.
For six years WENA members have clawed our way forward to build a vibrant West End
neighborhood. The economy improved and improvements began all around us. We’ve knocked on
doors, distributed flyers, left door hangers, put up bandit signs to announce our monthly meetings,
and given out business cards while walking dogs. We’ve had newcomers buying homes and joining
us who are also eager to build community. We were so excited when we reached a milestone of
having “young neighbors” pushing baby strollers. We were revitalizing in the West End!
An enormous challenge continues to be getting the large number of renters in our neighborhood to
engage. We are a single-family home neighborhood. If multi-family is developed with home
ownership, we build community. Homeowners want to build their lives here. With apartments that
are rentals, we’ve found it nearly impossible to “know our neighbors”, even though we continue to
reach out. We want to have more permanent West End residents and not increasing multitudes of
transients who are only stopping in for a little while.
The proposed PD zoning for Mosaic goes against the very fabric of our neighborhood. The density,
the design, the traffic, the hodge-podge way the parcels have been combined, the lack of continuity
within the project as though the developer could not decide what to include so they included a little
bit of everything: apartment high rise, a monolithic parking garage, town homes, retail space next to
residential, and a complete disregard for transitions with existing homes. The project needs to start
all over and the PD zoning should not be allowed. This real estate parcel needs to follow the
guidelines for the West End neighborhood. Tremendous funds have been invested by the City to
hire urban planners to create Comprehensive plans, Master plans, Overlays for neighborhoods, etc.
etc. and then PD was introduced as an option that eliminates public comment for the developer and
permits all the careful, thoughtful planning exercises for managed smart growth and development to
be voided and meaningless. How is that even possible to consider??
At the last meeting the elephant in the room was the density. Multiple questions were asked to the
developer about their consideration for something more in line with the surrounding residential
homes. Finally, they answered that their ‘investment must achieve the YIELD that they are
accustomed to’, and that basically means it must be extreme number of units to line their pockets.
How is it that Saint Capital needs 48 additional units to make the numbers work for 25 workforce
housing units? That must be one heck of a yield! A reply to them was ‘ Yes, I understand your
numbers have to work’. Well, maybe their numbers can work in another area when a larger acreage
is available to support the plan. If their numbers don’t work within the guidelines of the existing
zoning, then the developer should be forced to go elsewhere. We have zoning to protect, not to
disregard with a work-around. Affordable housing units that are included in any project should have
NO bearing on being given a green light to bring devastation to an entire existing neighborhood.
(One statement that I heard is that the density is 40% greater than our West End zoning norms?!)
Looking back, I’m GLAD there have been some proposed projects that did not get approval.
Consider Markley Station. The previous proposed project that was not approved would have
resulted in a far less attractive option than the very nice mixed-use addition that we see today. And
remember the storage facility that was going to be wrapped with hotel rooms in order to get it
approved? Can you imagine a storage facility one block off Main?? I’m so glad “NO” is an option
to allow a better plan to materialize for well ordered development for the long term.
Thank you to the Commissioners who stated their concerns about the negative impact to the West
End neighborhood this project would bring. I appreciate that several mentioned driving over,
walking the streets, etc. Please continue to put yourselves in our place. Would you want this
development in your backyard (literally!)? If this exact project were proposed elsewhere, tell me
where it would be a good fit:
- North Main? –Augusta Road? – Hampton Pinckney? – Townes and East Park?
There is NO where that I can imagine it a good fit in any established neighborhood.
Please, please hear our pleas and do not decimate what we have worked so hard to revitalize and
improve. Another project, and if necessary another developer, will come along and bring thoughtful
growth and design to this real estate. Then we will all look back and see yet another example of
being so GLAD that it was preserved for a better long-term result.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of every decision that you make and how it affects our
City, our future, and our lives. Let it always be for the best.
Sincerely,
Deborah Powell
Date: November 10, 2020
To: Planning and Development Staff, City of Greenville and Other Interested Parties
Subject: Input from a Local Citizen Regarding the Proposed Development, Mosaic at West End
Application #: Z-13-2020
Comments & Questions

Submitted by: Joy & Kemper Messner, 110 Ware Street, Greenville, [email protected], 856-669-9949
COMMENT 1: We oppose the rezoning request of 4.51 acres located on Academy Street, Perry Avenue,
Calhoun Street, and Ware Street that has been submitted by Saint Capital, LLC from its current zoning status of
RM-2 and RDV to PD. The current density allowable for this zoning area should not exceed the amount of 88
units, not the 138 units that they are requesting. This is NOT a good fit for an existing single-family residential
area. On August 4th, a small handful of West End residents were given a visual design from the developer, which
portrayed 36 apartment units and 68 townhomes (total 104). NOW we learn that they are putting in a request for
138 units, well above the allowable 88 and now even higher than the 104 that they first showed to us. The first
sketch showed townhomes and a small apartment building at the corner of Calhoun and Academy, now they are
looking to put another second (garden) apartment building on the small, narrow residential street of Ware Street.
We specifically oppose this 3-story garden apartment complex. The original rendering/sketch we were shown
indicated townhomes at that Ware Street site. There are other tracts of land in the West End that would be more
suitable for higher-density housing developments (like the large lot of the old, vacant SC Employment office
located between Pendleton and Perry).
COMMENT 2: We are disappointed that the neighbors of West End Association did not receive the web link for
the LARGE 166 page Application for Rezoning and Statement of Intent in a timelier manner that would allow
our neighborhood association to adequately review and meet to discuss before the mandatory community
meeting. The Notice of Neighborhood Meeting mailed out by Saint Capital, LLC had no information provided that
we could review, instead just referring us to await the letter from the city with a link to the application materials
(which did not arrive at my house until November 6th). Saint Capital, LLC gave us only 3-4 days to review this large
file before they scheduled a community meeting. This is a disservice to us as neighbors which are highly impacted
by this large planned development. We wish we were granted the courtesy of more time to meet as a
neighborhood prior to the mandatory Neighborhood Meeting. AND, we also feel that we need more time to
review the documents prior to the Planning Commission Meeting being held by the City of Greenville on
November 19, 2020.
COMMENT 3: Living and working in Greenville, we understand the need for more affordable housing options. As
Greenville continues to grow, the landscape is changing. Some folks have been “pushed out” of neighborhoods
because of housing cost. Therefore the city is responding by identifying ways to provide a variety of affordable
housing options, especially for younger families and seniors. We do not oppose affordable housing, and are happy
that they city will be reserving 20-25% of the units as affordable housing. However, the need for diversified
affordable “missing middle housing” is paramount, especially in established neighborhoods rich in amenities
(transportation, shopping, schools, and recreation). AND, we applaud the city’s effort to encourage more public-
private partnerships in future developments. HOWEVER, we do believe that this particular development could
have been structured with both rentals and homeownership in mind. We are one of the fastest growing areas
in the city; we (TRACT 7) are OUTPACING ANY OTHER TRACT with more permits and contribute to more than
half of the total investment in the city as it relates to “opportunity zones.” As an area one of the largest
percentages for new apartment buildings/rentals in the city, we are deeply concerned about the number of
rentals being built. HOMEOWNERSHIP brings more stable and vital communities that are invested in their
CITIZEN INPUT: Joy & Kemper Messner, 110 Ware Street, Greenville, SC, 29601
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting (November 19th) &
Application for Rezone of lots for proposed Mosaic at West End Development, Application #: Z-13-2020
Page 1 of 3
neighborhood. Instead of bringing another 138 rental units to our already burdened community, why not bring a
mix of affordable & market rate rentals and homeownership units to this tract? This particular development is
nestled in an established mostly single-family neighborhood (with the exception of the ground along Academy
Street). This is an opportunity for the City of Greenville to collaborate with the neighborhood to bring something
that complements the already existing neighborhood and achieves some of their goals in providing affordable,
work-force and “missing middle” housing.
QUESTIONS
Site Plan: Density/Parking/Roads – Density is over the limit that is currently allowed in the zoning.
1. What’s the benefit to our neighborhood to rezone the land to allow for more density? How exactly are
you measuring the “added value” this project will bring to our neighborhood? The West End was not
afforded a Comprehensive Plan since it was cut from the city budget - and we are at a disadvantage to
other surrounding neighborhoods that have one in place and feel that we are being taken advantage of.
2. In 2018, the city reviewed and approved new zoning changes to better reflect the growth of the West End
neighborhood. RM-2 and RDV zoning was put in place to assure that appropriate structures would be
located on lots in this RESIDENTIAL neighborhood of primarily single-family homes. An example, the lot
(116 N Calhoun) was rezoned to RM2, obviously reflecting the approved zoning plan for this street to
continue to be residential. How can it be even conceivable to put a parking garage next to single-family
home? How and where does a parking deck on an RM-2 lot ever work for neighboring single-family
properties? This design does not work for our neighborhood.
3. Ware Street is a very narrow street with single-family homes, how can that street handle the increased
amount of traffic traveling to the 3-story garden apartments? How does the street’s width and
negotiating the turn into the development and parking lot effect the use of getting fire trucks,
ambulances, and school buses into and out of the complex? How will narrow Ware Street be able to
handle the amount of increased traffic? The traffic study provided really did not give this any real thought.
This entrance off of Ware Street into the development should not be allowed.
4. Since this will be a rental community, residents will be more transient. How are you addressing the
increased amount of moving trucks navigating and parking on the narrow streets within the
development and also perimeter streets, especially Ware Street which is narrow and can barely handle
one car parking on the street and allowing another one to pass by it (let alone a truck)? Garbage trucks
and other large trucks have a hard time navigating that street – and you are allowing a 3-story apartment
building at the end of it?
5. In regards to parking – Most folks that rent a townhome use their garage or part of their garage for
storage, so that would account for one of your required parking spaces. So perhaps allowing just 1.5
parking spaces for each unit may not be enough. Why did you pick this number?
6. How does parking effect the use of streets and sidewalks for pedestrians, especially children that will be
out playing? How wide will the streets and sidewalks be?
7. How large is the green space that is being provided? Is it adequate for the amount of children out playing
or dogs?
8. Are you doing any improvements to the intersections? There currently is a sight problem for those
exiting Ware Street – trying to go straight onto Rhett/Perry, especially with cars parked in front of
resident homes on Perry. Accidents will happen there since Perry does not stop while making the turn in
front of Ware. Also how will the traffic exiting and entering the parking garage be addressed since it is SO
CLOSE to the corner of Calhoun and Academy? If motorists are trying to turn left into the garage from
Calhoun, will it be a public safety issue with motorists backing up, potentially onto Academy.
9. Are roads inside the development private of public? Will you be installing traffic/speed humps?
Page 2 of 3
10. Will there be parallel or on-street parking on the roads that you are creating? Parking restrictions?
Parking permits?
11. Where exactly are you putting up fencing? Height? Type?
Housing Units:
12. Will you be mixing the affordable units across all housing types and prices?
13. What will the price points be for these housing units – affordable and market rate units?
14. What happens when you cannot “fill” the units at the stated price points? We already have an
abundance of vacant apartment rentals in the community and more apartment complexes being built.
15. Who maintains ownership of the rentals? For how long?
16. What types of rules will be a part of the rental community?
Aesthetic Compatibility:
17. Why did you switch from the originally planned townhomes that were to be located at the end of Ware
Street to a 3-story apartment complex? How is a 3-story apartment complex aesthetically compatible
with the predominately one-story single-family homes located along Ware Street?
18. How does a large parking lot right next to an owner-occupied single-family resident aesthetically fit-in to
the surrounding neighborhood of single family homes on Ware Street?
19. What more can be done to create a more aesthetically pleasing step-up or step-down effect to building
height with surrounding and existing housing already in place?
Environmental Impact:
20. Are you creating any detention or retention areas? Where? How will it be handled?
21. How much impervious surfaces will there be? What impact will storm water runoff have? Did you do a
hydrology study? There is already lots of flooding on the other side of Academy Street – how will this
impact the adjacent neighborhood community?
22. What type of greenspace will you be creating? And how big will it be? Will it have a playground, dog
park, community garden, pavilion, or other? How can the residents use it? Is it adequate space for the
number of units?
23. Where will the trash receptacles be located for the large apartment complex and the garden apartment
complex? How will that effect neighboring homes – noise, smell, bugs? What about large items that
owners need to dispose of?
24. Are you offering recycling options for residents? Where? How does that effect neighboring homes?
25. Have you done a tree study? Are you going to save, relocate or replace trees?
26. Will you be allowing pets? If so, how many per unit? Do you have designated areas for residents to walk
dogs and dispose of dog waste?
27. Are any of the signs illuminated at night?
28. What type of noise or light pollution is created by this development? Smells from trash receptacles?
Educational Impact:
29. How will our local schools be impacted by the development? Have you had any conversations with the
local school board?
30. What is the approximate increase in students that the development might bring to our elementary,
middle, and high schools?
31. Is there adequate room in the schools for the increase in students from the development?
Page 3 of 3
Kevin R. Howard
From: Julia Campbell <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:20 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Jonathan B. Graham; Fraser Campbell; Dorothy Dowe; Lillian
Flemming; Shannon Lavrin; Ian Thomas
Subject: Fwd: FW: Proposed development - West End Neighborhood Needs Your Help
Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed
attachments.
Good afternoon Mr. Howard and Mr. Graham,
My name is Julia Campbell and I am a resident and homeowner with my husband, Fraser, and baby daughter at 114 N
Calhoun Street. Shannon Lavrin informed me that she has forwarded my previous emails to you regarding my thoughts
and concerns on the proposed Mosaic Development. I thank you for considering these points and wanted to reach out to
you directly. After the meeting on Monday evening between the West End neighborhood and the developers of Mosaic, I
am even more concerned regarding the proposed rezoning for this project.
On Monday night, the developer team met with the neighborhood association for the first time, three business days after
being notified of the proposed development and change in zoning. Many questions and concerns were voiced, and there
was an overwhelming message that the West End neighborhood is strongly against rezoning the land for a 138 mixed use
development in an existing, primarily single family home, neighborhood. It is clear that the developers are not interested
in collaborating with the existing homeowners and residents, as comments and questions were brushed off.
The following are some of the question and concerns that my husband and I raised during the meeting:
Schools -
Are our schools prepared to accept this significant increase in residents? The developers had not even considered this
impact. How can the developers state they’re creating a harmonious community when they aren’t thinking about what
happens once the tenants sign up for a lease? To me, this is even more evidence that the developers are not concerned
with how the effects of this development will impact the current neighborhood. Certainly the current zoning reflects what
the schools can handle in regard to an influx of new students as development occurs.
Traffic -
The increase from approximately 60 dwellings on N Calhoun, Perry, and Ware Street to almost 2.5 times that number will
have a significant impact on traffic. Page 83 of 166 of the proposal mentions that the study was conducted in October
2020 during COVID times and when schools are not back to normal (note that the Calhoun/Academy junction leads to AJ
Whittenburg school).
The developers have stated that the increase in traffic will be insignificant. This is not the case and acceptable data is not
being used to base their assumptions. The traffic study concludes (based on a different intersection from 2019 data) that
adding a 1% increase to this traffic to account for growth will be sufficient. Note that the developer references
Warlaw/Academy, a junction that is not at all comparable to Calhoun/Academy, as it is not used for school access or a
way to connect neighborhoods like Calhoun Street.
We believe a 1% increase is too small as, per the downtown master plan data published in 2019, the population of
downtown Greenville has grown 3.4% each year since 2010.
Loss of greenspace -
As is stated on the Real Property Service legal notes/description, 108 Perry is reserved for a future park. This land is
currently greenspace with several mature pecan and oak trees. When this was brought up in Monday’s meeting, the
developers and architects brushed off concerns for the loss of the dwindling tree canopy in Greenville. I have also
1
attached a screenshot of the current RPS legal statement. In the proposed development, the mature trees will be leveled,
and minimal greenspace is accounted for. How is this a future park as the legal notes state?
Direct contrast to the master plan created in 2013 and rezoning in 2018 -
The master plan created in 2013 has a row of single-family homes (totaling 14 while preserving the existing 5 homes
along Perry) with a small office space and significant greenspace buffer on the 116 N Calhoun.
In 2018, Greenville City conducted a rezoning project to lay a framework for how the area should be developed in the
future. 116 N Calhoun was rezoned to RM-2, with the rest of the lots towards Academy Street zoned to RDV. This was a
long arduous process, with much neighborhood input, that this plan just throws out the window.
It should be noted that my family, and other in the community, made decisions to improve our homes and even build new
homes, based on the direction that this rezoning plan laid out. It is a disservice to those homeowners to change the
zoning so soon after that project, on such little notice.
Commercial -
In the plan, there is a commercial store front proposed, mere feet from our front porch. If the developers are to use
examples such as The Green (on South Main Street), they should be planning for commercial use under the apartments
along Academy and not beneath the parking deck. Furthermore, a parking deck beside a residential home should not
be permitted.
If the planning commission is to grant zoning changes for this plan, I think it is necessary to search for evidence where
parking decks have been built successfully next to single family residential lots. I cannot find an image on google
when I search ‘parking deck beside home’. It is my understanding that there are no examples of this downtown Greenville,
as it is a poorly conceived development layout.
Please also take this into consideration: My home is going to be looking on to the southern facade of the parking
deck. Based on proposed setbacks, there will be 20’ between my daughters bedroom window and the parking deck. With
the exposed top level (and potential exposed sides for ventilation) individuals parking their cars are going to have a clear
view into my daughters bedroom and her adjoining bathroom. It is one thing to have residences side-by-side where
this occurs, but hundreds of car spaces looking on seems ridiculous to me. My entire back yard will also be
overshadowed with this deck as it runs the length of the entire lot at 116 N Calhoun Street, increasing in height the further
back it goes.
At the very least, I encourage you to visit the site of this parking deck and try yourself to envision how this is going to
look. I hope that you put yourself in our families shoes while you consider it.
Parking -
Page 37 of the proposal document references parking. There are some basic calculations listed that show how they
came to the total required spaces of 193 off street parking. I’d like to discuss the asterisked comment:
2
“Until a specific tenant has been selected the parking allocated for the commercial space is 1 per 250SF. Hours
of operation for the commercial tenants will occur at hours when the residential users are at work and this will
have less impact of the overall parking count.”
So based on this, they are making the assumption that residents will be leaving their homes and commenting to
work. This statement does not take into account the fact that more people than ever are working from home due to
COVID. Will these spaces be enough for both residents and commercial visitors? What happens when the deck fills
up? Are people to park on Calhoun and Perry Street? We have all seen what happens during a baseball game: Parking
bleeds over into residential communities.
The Markley Station parking allocation is not sufficient for the number of visitors (even during COVID) and more and more
street parking is occurring due to people going to Urban Wren, Hoppin and Todaros. All the surrounding neighborhood
streets are full of cars. It is my belief that will also happen in front of our homes, if this project is to proceed.
It should be noted that these topics aren’t even half of our concerns (please see my previous email for more), and don’t
encompass half of our neighbors’ concerns as well. I hope that you agree with me that some of these points I raise
highlight serious problems with the developers plan and that they deserve further study and perhaps a redesign.
While I understand that this letter may leave the impression that we are against any development on these empty lots,
that could not be further from the truth. Our family was extremely excited to buy a home downtown and we love reading
about the new and exciting projects that are popping up all over the city. We also believe that affordable housing is an
important part of Greenville's growth. However, it is key that the city not allow developers free reign to do what they will,
destroying the communities they move into in the process. Planning like this should be guided, with an overall strategy,
exactly like the 2018 rezoning project showcases.
Thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to discuss any of these points further with you via phone and you
can reach me at my number below.
Julia Campbell
(864)590-7861
---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Shannon Lavrin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:22 AM
Subject: FW: Proposed development - West End Neighborhood Needs Your Help
To: Julia Campbell <[email protected]>
From: Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:02 AM
To: Shannon Lavrin <[email protected]>; Jonathan B. Graham <[email protected]>; Courtney Powell
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Proposed development - West End Neighborhood Needs Your Help
Thank you Shannon we will include this comment in our staff report.
3
To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Description: Description: C OG_C olor_Side
Greenville Cares
[email protected]
864-232-CARE (864-232-2273).
Email messages sent to and from this account are subject to discovery under the S.C. Freedom of Information Act.
From: Julia Campbell <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 4:51 PM
To: Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Ian Thomas
Subject: Re: Proposed development - West End Neighborhood Needs Your Help
CAUTION: This email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or
opening attachments.
Good afternoon Councilwomen Dowe and Flemming,
We were in touch about the West End development in August and I appreciate you hearing my concerns
then. Since we last communicated, two updated plans have been brought to the attention of the
neighborhood, growing in numbers of rental units each time. Each new rendition has an
increasingly distasteful plan for what is to happen to the lot beside our home. I am disheartened to report of
the overall glowing support of the architectural review board (during their meeting yesterday), and complete
disregard for current home owners in the proposed West End/Mosaic development.
The architects and design review board stated they are excited about the integration of commercial into the
existing residential street with no thought of the current homeowners and residents. My thoughts and
questions about this are as follows:
• N Calhoun is not a commercial street, it is residential. If commercial is involved it either needs to be

along Academy or on Pendleton
o When the city reviewed new zoning changes to better reflect the growth of the West End
neighborhood in 2018, the lot beside us (116 N Calhoun) was rezoned to RM2, obviously
reflecting the plan for this street to continue to be residential. How is it appropriate to rezone
the lot again, to the opposite of residential? I would argue that this is incredibly inappropriate
and disrespectful to the community.
5
o During the review board meeting, it was mentioned that commercial and residential had not
been successfully integrated previously but they were excited to see how this would be tried
again. How is this going to be different with remaining unoccupied storefronts in the West End
on Main Street? (Ex. the Green and HomeWood Suites), especially as this is an even more
removed location from Main Street?
• It was stated that 'this is downtown' so the transition of townhomes from Main Street is appropriate -
this is the West End neighborhood of primarily single family homes, with a neighborhood association,
not Main Street as the review board touted. Yes, we are close to downtown, but N Calhoun is not a
commercial corridor.
The proposal would mutate a residential community into an even more transiently trafficked area. Even if the
storefronts might become 'more desirable' coffee shops/yoga studios/local vendors there will be a constant
flow of non-residential traffic in and out, above and beyond what currently exists. It was mentioned on the
call that the traffic study had been performed and there 'really won't be much impact to the community' and I
fail to see how that is true. Not only for the commercial traffic, but in addition to the 138 rental units (with
the potential for at least 2 cars per unit). This retail and car traffic will be our next door neighbor.
It was also mentioned on the call that the idea of a greenwall "is not preferable for users inside the
garage". My husband, myself, and our baby will be sleeping 20 feet away from car alarms, sounds of cars
crossing expansion joints, rumbling engines, beeping when cars are locked, and car headlights shining into our
windows at night. Our baby daughter's bedroom window will have headlights beaming into it as people come
and go. NOTHING is preferable about 'user experience' for the current residents, those who will be living and
working beside the proposed parking garage 24/7, not the brief 5-10 minutes parking garage users will
spend. This is just one example of how little existing community input is being considered. Also to note, the
top level is open and certainly well lit - which will bleed into our home at night even if the headlights are
concealed on the first two floors.
My hope is that as our locally representatives, you advocate and appeal on behalf of the existing residents of
this neighborhood, as opposed to supporting an incoming developer and their goals for financial reward. I am
begging you to not approve any rezoning changes to the lots for the construction of the Mosaic
development. I have attached a screenshot from the proposal of the development, with our lot circled in
red.
6
Thank you for your time and service,
Julia Campbell
114 N Calhoun Street
Cell: 864-590-7861
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:02 PM Julia Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Ms Dowe,
7
My name is Julia Campbell and I am a constituent living at 114 N Calhoun Street. My husband, and
I have made our home here for close to four years. We love our neighborhood and its diversity. We
especially enjoy having our baby daughter wave to our neighbors sitting on their porches every day
during our walks outside. Especially in this time of social distancing, celebrating our local community
and local outdoor spaces have been so essential to our mental and physical health.
It was recently brought to our attention that there are plans for a 104 unit rental development to be
developed surrounding our home. This is incredibly worrisome to our family for the following
reasons:
Loss of current neighborhood:
In the plans, our new 'neighbor' would be a parking lot, not a family home (or even homes) as we
had hoped when we purchased our home. The proposed imagery of the structures are not the 'front
porch living' homes that we know and love in our neighborhood, encouraging a feeling of community.
Additionally, having all of the units be rental properties does not encourage future residents to see
our neighborhood as somewhere to plant roots.
Currently, the five homes (that would
be bulldozed) on Perry Avenue are lively with children playing outdoors and enjoying the space to
run and explore. The proposed development has no space for this.
Loss of greenspace and worsening environmental conditions:
Currently, there is a large forest of bamboo and possibly centurian oak and pecan trees behind our
home. Not only does it house wildlife, but it also assists with providing shade and
beautiful greenspace. We would lose these trees, as well as pervious surfaces. During many of the
recent rainstorms, there was significant areas of flooding on our street, 123, and the Reedy River,
due to existing pervious surfaces being replaced with overcrowded housing. A development of 104
units (townhomes and apartments) will only worsen this, as minimal greenspace is accounted for.
Increased traffic:
The streets surrounding and running through our neighborhood are narrow. In living close to the red
light at the intersection of Calhoun and 123, there are times where I can not even enter my driveway
until traffic clears at the red light. Increasing the traffic to include 208+ cars (assuming each unit
would house two cars) on the existing small road would be suffocating. There are now approximately
60 doors on Perry, N Calhoun, and Ware. The proposed development would more than double this
number.
8
During our neighborhood meeting, the proposal was met by only negative feedback. I am certain my
concerns are shared by many, and the following requests may not even cover what others would like
to come of this.
I ask that you please restrict the proposed development. If it is to go ahead, I implore that you help
us do the following:
• Limit the number of dwellings proposed. Currently (as it is zoned) there should be
absolutely no more dwellings than the existing zoning requirements per each lot.
• Require a significant percentage of the properties to be owned by residents, not

rented. Encourage the same percentage (or higher) to be affordable housing to encourage
home ownership for people of a variety of income levels.
• Encourage architectural guidelines to extend what currently exists in the neighborhood.
• Protect existing green spaces and maintain pervious surfaces while preserving the
historical trees.
• Redesign the development to allow the lot neighboring us to be as-is specified in the
zoning codes as residential. Hide parking lots and require sound and light barriers to
existing homes.
I thank you for your time and help,
Julia Campbell
114 N Calhoun Street
9
Kevin R. Howard
From: Johnny Stephens <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:25 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard

attachments.
I live at the intersection of ware,perry and rhett,Rhett, can't imagine the amount of traffic with completions of the
redevelopment of the townhouses on ware st.owning my home in the area for the past twenty years, ware st. Has not
always been a dead end Street ,Now would be a great time to reopen it.Thanks
1
Kevin R. Howard
From: Lois Ordway <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:02 AM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; Ian Thomas; Suzanne;
Julia Kreilkamp
Subject: Ware Street Development, Z-13-2020
Attachments: PXL_20201018_233724578.NIGHT.jpg
attachments.
Good morning all,
There are a number of "buffer" problems in the Ware Street Development that I feel make it a bad neighbor:
1. There is no buffer in the world appropriate for a residential neighborhood that can block the sounds, smells, and lights
of a 3-story parking garage when it is right next to a family home (114 N.Calhoun).
2. It is fundamentally impossible to screen a large parking lot with the same set of nuisances when it's exit and entrance
is perpendicular to houses (Ware Street). Perry Avenue is feeling the consequences of a similar parking lot. Below is the
view from a number of homes. I don't think there are black-out shades strong enough to handle what's nextdoor or
across the street. Changing a residential designation to RDV has huge sound repercussions as well, now that there is
nothing to buffer the noise, lights and smells of Academy. I hope we can learn from our mistakes.
3. A six-foot fence won't block the noise or headlights from cars that A. enter and exit next to 32 Perry, B. park
perpendicularly to that house, C. drive along the diagonal interior drive (D. nor heading the other way into the back of
the houses on Calhoun, close to Academy).
Trees make a desirable addition to the project but they are simply not up to the task of "buffer." Not only will they take
20-30 years to become large enough to provide any cover, but that cover is only around for a little more than half the
year.
It is impossible to buffer away 34', 40', and 65' buildings when 90% of the surrounding homes are only single-story.
There is no hiding that the Ware Street Project is a very different animal from the neighborhood, and it's placement in
the middle of the block, in the middle of the West End, is entirely unsuitable.
I ask (for the sake of my neighbors and for the sake of the West End) that you turn down application Z-13-2020.
Respectfully yours,
Lois Ordway
213 Perry Avenue
1
Kevin R. Howard
From: Suzanne WW <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:53 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard
Cc: Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; [email protected]
Subject: Ware Street Development
attachments.
Good Afternoon,
As residents of the West End we’d like to voice concerns regarding the proposed Ware Street Project; Planning and
Zoning application Z-13-2020.
There are a number of topics that are of concern; traffic and parking, density, disregard of current zoning, neighborhood
fit, but I’d like to focus on how this project does not meet the GVL 2040 Comprehensive plan (draft) “Vision, Priorities,
and Planning Framework.”
1. Plan Summary – a new way of growing
“Strengthening and preserving existing neighborhoods, including careful infill development that adds variety
and inclusiveness to neighborhood housing.” (bold and italics are mine) GVL2040 Page 7.
The proposed Ware street project has a variety of housing options, but the inclusion of garden style apartment
and 3 story townhomes, which will tower over the existing homes around them do not preserve the character of
the neighborhood.
2. Affordable Housing Opportunities
“Allowing appropriately-scaled development in traditional neighborhoods will also advance the affordable
housing outcome and the value of inclusion, especially by addressing the “missing middle” in the city’s housing
stock.” (bold and italics are mine) GVL2040 page 50
A five-story apartment complex with an external parking garage 15 feet from a single-family home is completely
out of scale.
Missing from this proposed development is missing middle housing such as duplex, quadplex, and small multi-
family dwellings. These would be a much better fit for our neighborhood and still allow for an increase in
density.
3. Nodes and Corridors
According to the map included in the GVL2040 plan on page 45; the area that the proposed Ware Street projects
is contained is neither a node nor a corridor. With this in mind the live/use units included in the garden style
apartments (on Ware) are inappropriate as well as the mixed-use commercial space allotted in the apartment
complex.
“Careful transitions between nodes and existing neighborhoods ensure that residential character is preserved”.
GVL2040 page 55
1
A large apartment complex, tall townhomes, too much additional traffic, and a loss of greenspace is not a
“careful transition”. The West End has a lot of character in the building types and diversity of residence. This
should not be disregarded.
4. Phase I – Update Chapter 19 – Land Management
“Encourage, if not required, mixed-use development with commercial/retail uses on the first floors of buildings
that front significant streets.”
Calhoun Street is not a significant street. With the current traffic and street parking (sometimes on the street,
sometimes halfway on the sidewalk) it can become difficult to traverse and to back safely out of driveways. The
addition of a commercial space, even if it is community oriented and a parking garage entrance/exit will just add
to the congestion and safety issues.
In conclusion a quote from a January 7th, 2020 article from Fast Company for Smart cities titled: ‘Bad Urban Design is
making us miserable”
“Epidemiological studies have identified a large number of factors. Some of these highlight potential problems in the
built environment, such as reduced access to green spaces and high levels of noise and air pollution.”
“Consistent with this notion, the incidence of depression within urban areas is lower when people have access to
high-quality housing and green spaces.”
https://www.fastcompany.com/90448831/bad-urban-design-is-making-us-miserable
Thank you for your time,

Suzanne and Adrian Woolf
200 Perry Ave
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
2
Kevin R. Howard
From: Robert Hendry <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 11:51 AM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; Lillian Flemming; Ian Thomas
Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Subject: Ware Street Development/Mosaic West End
attachments.
We are homeowners in the West End and after participating in the developer
presentation Zoom meeting on November 9th, we are more convinced than ever that a
development of this density does not belong in our neighborhood for several reasons
and would like to voice our objections.
Density - This size property is originally zoned for 88.98 units and has grown to 104 units
and now 138 units plus a parking deck. A project this size is better suited for a
commercial property outside the downtown area and not wedged in between single-
family homes near downtown.
Encroaching on neighborhood - If constructed there will be a wall of twelve 3-story

townhouses on Perry Ave. towering over 1 & 1 1/2 story bungalows. The quality of life
for all the homes surrounding this development will be compromised with the
additional traffic, car lights and noises, parking lot light pollution, etc. The 15’ buffer
with a 6’ wooden fence and landscaping (which won’t be mature for years) will not be
enough to block this out. (The new office building on the corner of Pendleton and Leach
has parking lot lighting that shines into our neighbor’s bedroom window. The light
shines into the back of our house on Perry Avenue as well but fortunately our bedrooms
are in the front of the house.) The 2 1/2 story parking deck will be right next to a single-
family home. There is no way that won’t affect not only their quality of life but the value
of their property. A project of this type will lessen the value of every other home
nearby.
Increased traffic - 138 units could mean double that amount of cars plus delivery
vehicles, etc., on a daily basis traveling on Calhoun, Perry Ave. and Ware, which is
currently a quiet, narrow, dead-end street with little traffic. The entrance to the parking
deck on Calhoun is close to Academy, a busy intersection, which is sure to cause
congestion at that intersection.
Added cars parked on the streets - According to the developer, there will only be 1.5
parking spaces available per unit, between the parking deck and surface parking, for 115
one, two and three bedroom apartments and townhouses. The one and two bedroom
apartments have potential for needing 2 parking spaces and three bedrooms may need
up to 3 spaces. The commercial space on Calhoun and the 3 live/work spaces will need
off-street parking. Plus, there are 11 townhouses with 2-car tandem garages (which is
inconvenient) and no additional off-street parking. The 12 townhouses fronting Perry
Avenue have 2-car garages but no additional off-street guest parking. Where will the
overflow/guests park? Perry Ave. already fills up from events at Fluor Field. What about
future development across Perry where the employment office is? Parking on both sides
1
of Calhoun will create a traffic flow problem on that busy street.
Overall, we feel this development will always feel separate from the rest of the
neighborhood. The developer’s spin of how it will be “community oriented,” “visually
appealing” and “good quality of life” for those who live in that community as well as the
rest of the neighborhood doesn’t work. Somehow I don’t envision us walking by and
being drawn in by the inviting landscaped green spaces.
We especially oppose the rezoning of this parcel of land from RM-2 & RDV to PD to
allow for the proposed high density number of rental units. The definition of a Planned
Development District (PD) is that it “is intended to encourage innovative land planning
and site design concepts that conform to community quality-of-life benchmarks and
that achieve a high level of aesthetics, high-quality development, environmental
sensitivity, energy efficiency and other community goals.” Whose quality of life will this
project contribute to? Not the neighborhood’s. Whose environment will this project be
sensitive to? Not the neighborhood’s. We feel this high-density project wedged into a
neighborhood of single-family homes is being shoved down our throats under the guise
of providing affordable housing close to downtown so someone can make a profit. We
are in favor of affordable housing in our neighborhood but feel it would best suit the
neighborhood in the form of single-family, owner-occupied homes.
We are concerned about general over-development in the West End and hope the City
of Greenville will be more sensitive to the existing homeowners when considering
approving this and future projects. The rezoning of this parcel to allow for more housing
units could set a precedent for projects to come.
Sincerely,
Robert & Bonnie Hendry

305 Perry Avenue
2
Kevin R. Howard

To: Kevin R. Howard; Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall
Cc: Ian Thomas; Suzanne WW; Joy Messner; Bonnie Hendry; Julia Campbell; C.Christen
Palombo
Subject: Planning Board Application Z-13-2020 vs. the Comprehensive Plan
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up

Flag Status: Flagged
attachments.
Good day all,
I’m writing today to speak to the suitability of the Ware Street Development proposal as a new neighbor in the
community where I have lived for four years.
The West End Neighborhood, while zoned multi-family, has evolved over the past century to become one of single
family detached homes. It is exactly the traditional existing neighborhood the Comprehensive Plan proposes to
strengthen and preserve. It is not downtown. Nor is it slated for higher density. No nodes. No corridors. Just single
family homes.
Plopping a much taller, much denser urban building project in the middle of a block of single-story detached homes
breaks all the rules of infilling. It does nothing to connect with, much less preserve, our neighborhood.
We want to save our open spaces, protecting our air, water, and plants. The 3-acre green space (not too long ago
designated as a future park) that will be lost represents a major chunk of the West End’s canopy, green space and open
space. It is an asset that should not be sacrificed.
Balance is key in making decisions that reflect our community core values. We in the West End want affordable housing
(particularly owner-occupied), but not at the expense of our neighborhood character, and what little green space and
tree canopy we have.
I ask that you turn down the request for a rezone by the Ware Street Development, and say no to projects that are not
in keeping with my neighborhood. We can do better.
Respectfully yours,
Lois Ordway
213 Perry Avenue
Sent from my iPad
1
Kevin R. Howard

To: Kevin R. Howard; Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; Ian Thomas
Subject: The Ware St. Development

Flag Status: Flagged
attachments.
Hello City Council Members

,
My name is Christen Palombo. I live at 15 N. Leach Street which is one block from Calhoun St and Perry Ave.
I zoom attended the Ware St developer’s presentation and was so frustrated. What is the point of having several highly
qualified urban planning professionals put together best practices proposals for the Ware St development and then totally
disreguard ALL of the recommendations?
In 2014, a West Side Greenville Comprehensive Plan was developed and this plan is known to be economically
valid and an excellent resource of infomation that the Developers and appropriate city departments should be
using.
This design does not work for our neighborhood. This project also goes against GVL 2040’s preliminary
findings of protecting greenspace. I will share my concerns and thoughts as follows:
1. The developer needs to comply with the existing RM2 and RDV zoning regulations of 89 units, which were established
only 2 years ago. The density they are proposing at 140 units will create too much noise, traffic problems on Calhoun St at
the light and the Perry St and create overcrowded living space which will also bring down the value of the existing homes.
We asked that you stay within the zoning standards. It is as if you couldn’t get affordable housing worked into any other area
of the city’s new construction, so you have to add way too many units into this one site to fill some requirement at the
expense of everyone else in this neighborhood. This is in violation of the city zoning requirements. They are stacking as many
units as possible, creating a congested overcrowded living situation that doesn’t enhance any neighborhood culture, but
just provides space for bodies. Where in the builder's preliminary plans are best practices addressed? I recognize that the
city wants more affordable housing, but to do such a large percentage of it in one small development is unreasonable and
unfair to the residents.
2. A Traffic study needs to be done outside of Covid to gather realistic statistics.
3. Looking at the Opportunity Zones presented by City Council, there is a tremendous amount of private investment money
coming to the city.
4. As a resident of West End, I looked over the plans for what the city projected to do in the future for this neighborhood
when considering building my home on North Leach St. Nowhere was there any proposals for a densely populated, void of
green space and lacking a neighborhood culture mentioned. We spend more money than we should to live in the beautiful
West End. We improved the value and safety of this neighborhood. The city’s response to that is to lower our standard of
living with an overcrowded opportunity for the city to get affordable housing and the existing residents to have to just deal
with it.
5. My neighbors will have to have a large noisy ugly garage practically in their back yard with this existing plan.
This garage doesn’t belong in this type of neighborhood.
I hear constant noise from the businesses on Pendleton St. from people sitting in the parking lots on the other side of my
fence. They play their music loud, talk and laugh until sometimes midnight. I also have the lights from the new office building
that are very bright and not what I expected when I bought my house 3 years ago. I have
1
Buffer plants and 6 foot fences but these do not help. The developers seem to think that 6 ft fences and some buffer plants
will solve these problems, but it doesn’t. The residents on Calhoun St are going to have 10 x the noise and the lights from the
garage and the other units. This will create a living nightmare for those families. Also, the value of their home will be cut in
half!! The garage shouldn’t even be there. Get rid of one of the apartment complexes and the garage. That is appropriate.
Please remember why you were voted in to office. This development is not what I voted some of you in for.
Sincerely,
Christen Palombo
15 N. Leach St , 29601
2
2020.11.18
Re: Planning Commission meeting November 19th, 20020 Agenda ITEM# D. Z-13-2020
Application by Saint Capital, LLC for a REZONE of 4.51 acres located on ACADEMY STREET, PERRY AVENUE,
CALHOUN STREET, WARE STREET from RM-2 and RDV to PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Dear Planning Commission board members,

With the understanding that on 11/19/2020 you will be providing recommendations to City Council regarding the
referenced project above, it has come to my attention that some overlooked information needs your consideration. Some of
this information will contradict what you have read in the City’s Staff report, in addition to what city staff verbalized during
the 11/17 Planning Commission workshop. I am fully aware that residents have written letters to you already in anticipation
of this meeting but under the advisement of Councilmember Flemming and Dowe, I was asked to compile a condensed list of
information to ensure you had supplemental information that may contradict, validate or question information you have
received from City Staff. I ask you review this information and if you feel it is appropriate, I sincerely hope you will be
compelled to ask questions to City Staff to help “clear the air” to help the public feel heard because the informal DRB review
had no public comment, the PC workshop had no public comment, and we believe the staff report has omitted information. So
before I begin, I appreciate your patience and time to read this. I recognize that I am putting you at a disadvantage of receiving
this letter so late but as the City Staff report and workshop occurred just within the last 6 days, I hope you will take time to
read this letter, in its entirety.
Information Part 1) Recap of important events between the Neighborhood & Development team
- I have been advised that during the DRB information review and PC workshop that the Developer has had “several”
meetings with the neighborhood and “many” issues have been resolved. Evident of a 7 page questionnaire (attached),
a required developer meeting cut short on 11/09 which resulted in questions unanswered, it does not appear that the
development team has satisfied the public with answering questions. Below is a condensed timeline with our
interactions. In short the neighborhood had 1 meeting with Saint Capital and then I had 1 meeting with Saint Capital,
1 meeting with GHF and 1 combined meeting with GHF & Saint Capital.
Date Initiating entity & media/format Content Attached?
2020.07.02 Saint Capital - email Request for meeting with Ian (WENA president)
2020.07.21 Saint Capital – zoom Ian & Saint Capital:
Introduction and high level presentation of project (2 slides
shown, 30 min meeting)
- 104 units & will go before the City in September
2020.08.05 WENA – email Ian to Saint Capital: Letter of thanks but advised of Y
significant negative reaction 2020.08.05
2020.08.10 Residents to City Council Request for a Temporary Moratorium for any WENA
developments/applicants/permits
2020.08.10 WENA- spoke to City Council Request City Council to consider requests of residents of
WENA regarding the moratorium
2020.08.12 WENA – email to GHA Request for meeting
2020.08.12 WENA – email to Saint Capital Ian to Saint Capital: 7 pages of questions submitted based Y
on 07.21 zoom meeting 2020.08.12
o No answers provided by Saint Capital
2020.08.24 WENA- email to GHF Request a meeting to understand the affordable housing
component specific to this project
2020.08.27 WENA – zoom Ian Thomas, Joy Messner (WENA resident), Bryan Brown,
Tina Belge (GHF) 1.5 hr discussion on verbal “new” plans
2020.11.20 – PC Application Z-13-2020: West End Neighborhood Association

and learning about the affordable housing financing &
components of this project.
2020.08.27 WENA – email to GHF Follow-up with supporting information including 2014 Y
West Side Comprehensive Plan 2020.08.27
2020.09.23 GHF, Saint Capital – zoom GHF, Saint Capital & (4) selected WENA residents met. GHF Y
advised that minor changes have been made and we should 2020.09.23
expect an update soon. 1 slide shown
2020.10.30 Saint Capital – email Email to Ian notifying that “Developer” meeting will be
scheduled for 11/09/20. No attachments
2020.11.04 City Website – PC agenda 166 page application made available to public & WENA for
first time
2020.11.09 Saint Capital – Zoom Developer lead “neighborhood” meeting.
- Approx. 40 attendees
- Approx 3.25 hours long
- Not all attendees were able to ask questions or
have their questions asked
- Numerous questions were asked
- Developer & Architect advised they would provide
responses by Thursday 11.12.2020
o No answers have been provided
2020.11.19 WENA – request for meeting Ian requested a meeting to review staff comments and
design but due to schedule conflicts, (on both sides) we
couldn’t meet. No fault of Developer.
Information 2) Staff Report is missing information

We are aware of the economic developments taking place in our neighborhood, aware of the significant investment in
workforce housing being incorporated in every new apartment complex that is being built in our neighborhood, we are aware
that our neighborhood is destined for more redevelopment and a more “urban” landscape but in order for smart growth to be
accomplished, people must be informed. In this case, the people that need to be informed are the board members of the
Planning Commission and after reading the staff report I will only pick (3) specific items that require your attention as it
relates to the consideration of a Planned Development:
1) 2014 West Side Comprehensive Plan
a. Saint Capital’s site is specifically identified, discussed, evaluated and part of the larger narrative of
community goals of the 2014 West Side Comp Plan. I must ask, why was this information not included in
the staff report to the board for context and consideration when a PD should “to conform to community
quality-of-life benchmarks and that achieve a high level of aesthetics, high-quality development,
environmental sensitivity, energy efficiency, and other community goals. “ Can the City or Developer
comment on what the community goals from the 2014 Comp plan are and how they apply to this project?
Since this plan was created by the City, recommended for approval by Planning Commission and
approved by City Council in 2015 I would hope the Developer, GHA and GHF would take this document
into serious consideration, even if a Comprehensive Plan can be labeled as “only a suggestion.”
i. I know that GHF was not aware of this document until WENA brought this up during our
2020.08.27 meeting.
ii. If you have time, you can skim the plan to find info on the high rate of rental units in this
community, how zoning needs to be modified and how this site is a great opportunity for a
pocket neighborhood.

2) 2018 City Rezoning of 104 acres
a. Due to findings of the 2014 Comp Plan, 102 acres in the West End, West Greenville, Stirling and Green
Ave neighborhoods were examined and determined that a rezone was appropriate to convert numerous
properties from C2 to RDV, C2 to RM2, C2 to RM1 and OD to RDV. This also was recommended by the
Planning Commission and approved by City Council in January/February of 2019.
b. This process took a year in collaboration by Community Development, Planning Department, property
stakeholders, Commercial and residential property owners including GaH scattered site and GHA.
c. The zoning is relevant to Mosaic’s project in at least two specific ways. The 3.497 acres of RM2 zoning
was found to be validated and that C2 is too intensive of Commercial zoning next to RM2 so RDV was
found to be appropriate on the .955 acres on Academy & N. Calhoun.
i. I must also advise that the location of the proposed parking deck was changed from C2 to RM2
and C2 to RDV. This means the city actively deliberated what would best fit on these parcels.
d. So again, I must ask the question, why was this information not mentioned in the staff report?
i. The existing zoning is tested and validated so to see a drastic change to a PD with no staff
comment is a surprise.
ii. What precedent is being made to a property owner if zoning is changed again within 2 years?
1. PD could be the best choice for the Developer but is a PD the best use of the land in the
context of the community that surrounds it?
3) The GVL 2040 Comprehensive Plan
a. We are aware that contents of the draft have been utilized by the planning department to justify changes
to the existing municipal code such as RM-3.
b. We are also aware that the GVL 2040 Comp plan does NOT identify this area as a “node” and that the
comp plan provides details of what type of residential developments will be appropriate for this site and
surrounding areas.
c. Knowing that GVL 2040 is still in draft form, it surprises me that city staff are using it to guide future land
use.
Staff Conditions VS Alternative Conditions?

- I truly believe City Staff did not go far enough to evaluate the building footprint, scale, density, architecture and the
character relationship of the project in connection with the surrounding properties so we believe at a minimum the
following conditions need to be considered for further deliberation:
1) No condition at the PC or DRB should allow an “only reviewed/approved by 2 members of the board.”
a. The neighborhood strongly opposes the inability for public input at the PC & DRB related to this project so we
appreciate this being called out intentionally as a condition.
2) The garden apartments on Ware St. need to be replaced with another building form compatible with house scale.
a. Neighbors prefer a missing middle housing concept of quad/duplex that focuses on house scale instead of
block scale. If no MMH can be accommodated, we would prefer Townhomes as a concession.
3) A PD is to be of high arch/conceptual design: so eliminate the surface parking lot and replacing it with a turf open
space on Ware St. This can be done to also achieve firelane access.

a. This design quality is an exceptional design quality and would be an example of creative design/use
especially when this project offers little to none amenities for its renters.
4) Collaborative Condition: What can be done to make the parking deck & apartment complex either compliant with
DT design guidelines Or what can be done to get it under the apartment complex and/or repositioned to face
Academy?
Questions more than Confrontation

- We realize it is not the boards objective to weigh in on better practices, but I hope there are questions to validate the
reasoning of a parking deck immediately adjacent to RM-2 zoned properties. What precedent A) allows this and B)
how will zoning ensure a fair and conscious functionality with a neighboring RM2 property? Our neighborhood has
already experienced (2) conditional uses of RM-2 to surface parking lots and that neighbor isn’t happy with their
property value and resale value.
- Why is there no traffic study at the intersection of Rhett St/Perry Ave & Ware St?
o Can engineering comment on this intersection as it is a highly awkward 3-way intersection that will be a
bottle neck of traffic.
- If the traffic plan showcases such a low volume increase in traffic, why hasn’t the developer added a “right in” and
“right out” directly on academy to alleviate traffic on N. Calhoun and the intersection of N. Calhoun & Academy?
- With the new City Tree Ordinance final draft stages, how will this ordinance impact the building design and what
ramifications are in place if the new ordinance conflicts with the site design and building footprint requiring
adjustment?
- Exhibits A – F: the branding/concept/architecture is varied with little continuity. We hope the DRB can really help
push the envelope in smart design that is residential friendly.
- Dating back to 2014, we embraced the notion of a 12-15 housing units on the RM-2 parcels but also recognized that
residential scaled “20 units per acre” is an option (because we have many duplexes). However, we interpreted this to
be “per parcel,” which would have naturally lowered the density count by parcel infill requirements. Instead, we are
faced with an excessive amount of +48 units above the allowed 88.9.
o It was a lot to digest when I was originally told and shown in July to expect 104 units with 25% affordable
housing units. So I certainly regret sharing this false information and adding to the confusion when people
learned it would be 138 units on 11/09.
With an oddly shaped parcel(s) of land with 200’ LF on Academy and +650’ LF of street frontage on Ware St, Perry
Ave and N. Calhoun St and the goal to maximize the entire parcel should go out of its way to incorporate and embrace the
characteristics of the neighborhood. We have all seen apartments and townhomes in this same fashion so if density is the only
goal for the developer, let’s take some time to ensure the footprint, scale and street level feel of this project is in character with
a neighborhood, in this case, our neighborhood- the West End.
I apologize for a lengthy letter (not even including all of the attachments) but we just believe this project has more
potential than what the application is showing before us. I hope you can help the neighborhood with getting this project in a
better position of success before it goes before City Council.
Sincerely, Ian Thomas

2020.08.05
Re: Ware Street Redevelopment:
Tax parcel ID#’s: 0079000203500, 0079000203509, 0079000203508, 0079000203507, 0079000203506, 0079000202800,
0079000202700, 0079000202600, 0079000202501, 0079000202500, 0079000201400, 0079000201300, 0079000201200,
0079000201100, 0079000201900 (approx. +/- 4.46 acres)
Dear Bryan,
Good afternoon, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to take a minute and follow up with you regarding the
Redevelopment at Ware St, Perry Ave and N. Calhoun St. Last night, our neighborhood association met to allow me the
opportunity to advise them of the information you presented to me on 07/21/20. After the neighborhood reviewed the
information, we entered in discussion to listen to concerns, questions, and comments regarding the project. We discussed several
items including but not limited to density, design, traffic, affordable housing, trees, loss of a “future” park, ownership vs rental and
etc. As a result of our discussion, the neighborhood has asked that I notify you as soon as possible of the following; based on the
information provided, the neighborhood and adjacent residential property owners have significant concern with the project as it
is currently proposed. Instead, we are hoping we can work with you directly to share these concerns but also discuss alternatives
to the project before you submit your project application to the City, triggering a “developer” lead meeting. Based on the time
tables we discussed during our 07/21 meeting, the neighborhood would like to meet with you before 08/14 to allow both entities
the opportunity to discuss the project and see what options there are to significantly change the Redevelopment you have
proposed.
We hope there can be an amicable resolution that will benefit both you, your investors, future residents of this site and
also those who currently are live adjacent to the proposed project. As it currently stands, the Redevelopment indicates a negative
impact to the livability of our neighborhood, and we are hoping a proactive approach to resolve our issues will better serve
everyone’s involvement.
I will also be working to compile as many comments/questions and feedback from neighbors so when we do meet next,
you are prepared to answer our questions. I am not an expert in many of the topics being discussed about this project but as we
lack the resources of experts on these matters, I certainly will do my best to communicate our concerns but also hope that you and
your development team can provide factual, real, transparent answers. I know more needs to be discussed but working a full-
time job and also volunteering time for the neighborhood certainly stretches my availability so I hope you understand this letter
will have to suffice until I have time to compile information from the neighborhood.
One item I must ensure you are aware of is, the neighborhood has and always will be a proponent for affordable housing.
We are pleased to hear 25% of the housing units may be utilized for affordable housing. I also must thank you for speaking with
me about this project prior to any requirements by the City. This little act is greatly appreciated to ensure we can have an open
dialogue outside of a developer or City held meeting.
I have attached a quick snapshot of the information we reviewed from 07/21 so those not aware have something to
reference. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ian Thomas
West End Neighborhood Association

[email protected]
864.238.2099
8/5/2020
Information presented to West End Neighborhood during neighborhood meeting on 08/04/20
New Business for discussion: Ware St. Development
What we know at this time
• Approx 4.4 acre site
• Approx 104 housing units
• _36_ apartment units
• _68_ townhomes (3 story tall)
• Rental units only
• Any single‐family units will be removed from this
site
• 25% of units will be for affordable housing. No
details on AMI levels for affordable housing.
• Residents within 500’ ft of this project will
receive notice of a “developer” lead meeting in
late August so the City could review it in
September. (subject to change)
New Business for discussion: Ware St. Development
Existing
Proposed
1
Next Steps?
- What City Boards (BZA, DRB, PC and/or City Council) do you expect this project to go before for
review/approval?
- When a “developer” lead meeting is scheduled, we would appreciate the opportunity that any property owner,
stakeholder, GHF/GHA representatives of the project to attend this meeting as well.
Development Team:
- Can you please provide local, regional, and/or national examples of other developments your team has built that
are relative to this project design/scale/scope?
- Can you please advise what experience your development and construction team has with affordable housing
and financing for this type of project?
- What is the reasoning behind a “rental only” development and how does your financing work to support “rental
only?”
- Can you please provide examples and/or case studies regarding the change in property values adjacent to
projects such as you have proposed?
- Can you clarify the ownership of the property as it relates to this project? Is/has or will one entity purchase all
the parcels or how will that work as there are (3) known separate property owners involved.
Summary/Generalization of Comments from the Neighborhood:
- Overarching concern about the # of units, rental only, with no ownership options, property value concerns,
longevity of developer/property owner investment in this project. Significant concern about losing the long-
term bamboo forest. Residents do not consider this vacant land but as a forest and it has been an integral part
of the neighborhood providing shade, sound mitigation and many other uses.
- Residents want ownership investment in the neighobrhood, not rental only. Decrease the # of units, protect the
existing greenspace, and redesign the project to be more cognitive of the adjacent residential homes.
- Neighbors feel financial, family and long term investment is negatively impacted.
- Neighbors are concerned about the aesthetics of how the townhomes will look and feel at the street level.
- Ware St. Residents are extremely concerned at the loss of street facing housing units and concerned their
exit/entrance may be used as a cut through if/when traffic gets bad on other streets.
- Front Porches have been strongly reiterated by all residents on N. Calhoun, Perry Ave and Ware St.
- Increased Traffic, not just from this project but all other Academy apartment projects are starting to show an
influx of cut-through traffic on Perry to Rhett, N. Leach and N. Calhoun. We are no longer experiencing only
neighborhood traffic. As such a traffic study is being requested by the neighborhood.
- We want to support a diverse and thriving community and neighborhood. Rental only units creates a certain
unknown if renters will “reinvest” into the neighborhood. We know rental units are needed in Greenville so
what information can you share to address this concern?
- The long term affects of this project, as it relates to livability are of concern, not only specific to this project but
what the “next” more intense project will be that will further push the extent of development in our
neighborhood.
- Front loaded townhomes, shape/design of Apartments and parking lot for Apartments question design. We
hope the typology of the design is adjusted to be conscious of the neighborhood character. Walkability, live,
work, play components are integral components to our neighborhood and we want to ensure this project isn’t
segregated or disjointed from these qualities. Tenure of design qualities don’t appear to match character of the
neighborhood.
- We hope we can collaborate on the character and principles of the project. We hope the ‘density yield” of this
project is weighed against the values and cores of successful affordable housing projects.
- The 2014 West Side Comp Plan is still a relevant tool for design in addition to the economic cycle.
Ware St Redevelopment- Comments from West End Neighborhood – 2020.08.12 page 1

Environmental/Site Work:
- Storm Water
o What type of stormwater system will be utilized? Retention, detention or subsurface?
 Based on existing grades and dense vegetation, the current acreage is a significant filter and
retainer of rainfall and surface water. With the new addition of impervious materials including
asphalt/curbing/structures AND the dramatic increase in vehicular usage, are you willing to
closely examine a variety of options to exceed the minimum standards for storm water to
include the use of bioretention, bioswales and vegetated buffers between adjacent parcels/lots
to mitigate water run-off, oil run off and other flooding that could affect intersections/ROW?
 Knowing that if a surface retention/detention system is utilized, we hope this is not counted
towards any “green” space.
- Infrastructure
o With the hope that the revised plans will more clearly define a “street” vs “alleyway” we hope to see
more investment in the infrastructure of any roadway inside of your project. ROW, sidewalks, trees,
streetscaping is an integral part of any neighborhood and if the design does not properly address public
streets vs alleyways, both residents of the project and neighbors will be negatively impacted.
o The quality of the streetscape and ROW are key principles to us for the success of neighborhood
character and connectivity.
o We understand that any success with design and affordability has the ground work of strong
infrastructure.
- Tree Canopy
o Numerous heritage trees exist here, what trees are you planning to save?
o Will you consider preserving/leaving some of the heritage trees or native species and develop around or
incorporate them into the design of the project?
o Will you consider utilizing the city’s “proposed” tree ordinance instead of the existing/municipal code
ordinance?
 If not, will you consult with the City of Greenville’s, Ed Kinney to solicit areas that you can go
above the existing minimum requirements for tree/landscaping?
 Will you be open to working with Upstate Forever or Trees Upstate to collaborate on what
options can be made available to go above and beyond the existing tree/landscape code to
preserve or reinvest in the forest/greenspace of this site?
o The neighborhood has long enjoyed the central parcel, dubbed the “bamboo forest” dating back to 1955
as this parcel has remain undeveloped since areal footage has been available. There is some sensitivity
to this parcel as it has been a common refuge/growing canopy of shade for residents- both human and
animal.
- Wildlife
o These parcels contain a variety of wildlife including, groundhogs, gray foxes, barn owls, monarch
butterflies, bats and a variety of species of birds.
 Before any demolition, clearing of the site takes place, we want efforts documented in writing
that time will be allocated to allow wildlife experts time to examine & rehome any species that
is using the 4.46 acres as a habitat.
• Of these wild life: barn owls, monarchs and bats attract special attention as they are a
priority species identified in the SCDNR’s SC State wildlife action plan.
o We realize this may not be a normal request and this may not fit your normal
wheelhouse of expertise, so we hope you will be willing to add experts from the
wildlife industry to be part of this conversation prior to any work physically
starts

Traffic:
- Traffic Mitigation
o What traffic improvement/mitigation plan do you propose for N. Calhoun, Perry Ave, Ware St, N
Memminger, Rhett St, McCall, N. Markely and Academy St?
o What type of engineering controls are proposed to for the traffic mitigation plan to include but not
limited to right turn only dedicated entrances vs exits?
- Exit/Entrances
o N. Calhoun St.
 As this exit/entrance is not square with the alleyway of West End Commons, what traffic issues
can be mitigated to minimize vehicular and pedestrian visibility?
 As this exit/entrance receives a high volume of pedestrian traffic in order to access academy st,
what mitigation efforts can be employed at this entrance?
o Perry Ave
 If (2) exit/entrances are to be utilized, we desire these to align with Meminger and central of the
block between N. Memminger & N. Calhoun.
 Exit/entry at the intersection of Perry/N. Calhoun currently receives high volume and with the
existing 2way stop, traffic will be congested due to the proximity to this intersection.
o Ware St.
 What considerations are there for purchasing property to extend Ware St to Academy St.?
- Public Transit:
o What efforts have or will be taken to modify/adapt existing bus routes to ensure this development can
be integrated to existing or new public transit routes?
o Will there be stops on Academy or will N. Calhoun St, Perry or Ware St be utilized?
- Parking:
o We have seen the success and failure of projects like what you proposed based on parking and car
design/use/access and volume.
 If “density” is the goal of the developer, it appears a lot of square footage is dedicated to
impervious materials instead of smart design.
o Can you please elaborate the reasoning/justification of 3-story townhomes with a 1st floor garage
instead of a two-story townhome with ground level parking?
o Are the parking minimums 1.5 or 2 vehicles per housing unit?
o How will street parking be incorporated into this project regarding traffic mitigation?
 With narrow neighborhood streets, increased traffic, use and vehicles, how can you address
street parking to ensure vehicular and pedestrian safety?
o Overall Parking design and structure footprints can’t be further discussed at this time until a revised plan
is available.
o For any street lighting that is used within the project area, we ask that filters/shields be installed to
minimize any direct light/footcandles toward any existing and proposed structure/residence.
 I know this can be a standard request in commercial/industrial projects but we hope this is an
easy item to address.
o Can you please advise how the “inner” drive/roads of the project will be defined?
 If they are termed as alleyways, how are you addressing the front facing section of the
townhome? Does this not conflict/violate existing city ordinance/design standards?
Utility/ROW:
- What efforts will be taken to have powerlines buried on Ware St and Perry Ave?
o This effort will increase the viability of trees being planted in the ROW

o Are the options to bury a portion of the powerlines on N. Calhoun St?
o Will all perimeters of the property have new street lighting?
 If so, we will support the use of similar design/concept as the City’s CBD district.
o Will Academy St be designed to allow for a sidewalk wider than 4’ ft?
o What will be the width of all other sidewalks on N. Calhoun, Perry Ave and Ware st?
Affordable housing:
- We are anxious to hear from your investment team and Affordable Housing Partners to learn more about this
aspect of the project as we have not heard any details on this subject matter yet.
- Can you please provide specifics of what type of affordable housing will be provided?
o Will it only be work force housing?
o If not, what AMI % are targeted for this project?
 As our neighborhood is proponents of affordable housing, we hope you can provide a range in
AMI % affordability that are well below work force and market rate.
- Please understand our neighborhood and adjacent areas already have workforce housing so we hope your are
able to diversify any affordable housing.
- What options are available to incorporate ownership instead of only rental units?
- West Greenville & CBD/Downtown already has been trending with high rental rates and higher than average
quantity of rental units for Greenville County and the state, how do you feel this project validates the need for
rental instead of ownership?
- We would like to hear information from the GHF and GHA regarding this project to provide information,
supporting documentation as to the candidacy of this project over others in the Greenville Market.
- Before the installation of Academy St. all parcels, except the “bamboo forest” were developed as single family
dwellings. With Academy being built, Ware st was cut off in the 1980’s which was a catalyst for some single
family homes to be demolished. Unlike so many other sites in the County and City, we previously had a variety
of single family homes in a variety of shapes and sizes and I think many of our life-long, long-term and new
residents want to see this design put back where it belongs.
o Unlike many areas that have had vacant land sitting until the economy turned to invest in new projects,
we see this area as a re-investment. Walking Perry Ave, Rhett St, McCall St, Ware St, we have seen
residential infill in a variety of design concepts and we truly believe affordable housing in smart design
can achieve this type of concept.
Zoning
RDV vs RM-2
- Can you please break-out and explain what is and isn’t allowed between the RM-2 & RDV zoning classifications?
- Can you please clarify the density of housing units allowed in RDV vs RM-2?
- Can you clarify/explain setbacks and how they can be used to gain additional height for your structures?
- Is it your intention to rezone any RM-2 lots to another classification?
o If not, do you intend to pursue any special exceptions or special conditions for any RM-2 lots to satisfy
your project needs?
 If so, will you please elaborate what parcels you are referring to.
Design
- We will appreciate 3D rendering/angles in addition to any “street views” to help city boards, staff, neighbors and
residents to understand the scale and massing of this project to help show the height and massing comparison
to the surrounding structures and lots.
- Can you confirm the proposed building height for the townhomes and the apartment buildings?

- Realizing that you must work within the confines of existing zoning, if it is determined that you are able to
exceed the existing zoning building height utilizing your setbacks, we hope you will clearly explain this to the
neighborhood during any meetings with the neighborhood.
- We realize that the zoning allows for townhomes but if you have walked the streets of the neighborhood, we
believe only townhomes and apartments may not be the best option/solution, we hope you can revisit this.
- As a neighborhood that is in close proximity to the downtown core, we are not blind to the taller, more densely
designed projects that have been permitted or that are currently under construction within our neighborhood
borders. We certainly understand that national trends may not always support traditional single-family
dwellings. However, this is a middle-ground to design to ensure design qualities of the surrounding structures
are taken into consideration of any project and though our zoning may not be as defined/clear on these designs,
we do hope you can see our concern on how this project is/was currently designed. We hope we see a vastly
different theme, concept and design presented for comment and input.
- Based on character of the surround buildings, we strongly urge you to ensure your design follows MMH house
scale. 1 More simply put, with house scale, we want to ensure the functionality/design of any massing has
residential feel versus the uniform massing of a commercial type of building. As such, if townhomes are the only
option utilized, we want to ensure facades are not uniform and massing is limited to not exceed (4) contiguous
housing units.
- We believe that Greenville is already a host to other design options that may be better suited for this site’s
longevity and integration with not only the neighborhood but its surrounding community- societal and
economically.
o We would like to discuss with you options to examine the design features of a
“pocket neighborhood” or utilize a variety “smart design” single family, duplex, quadplex and other
building types/massing that will vary the monotonous design of 12 townhome structures and 2
apartment buildings. Due to the age, history and revitalization of this neighborhood, we hope the
character and design you submit can truly reflect these qualities.
 If you need examples of duplex/quadplex examples and design of how they are integrated,
please let us know. E & W. Earle st can provide some examples.
 We believe these design concepts are substantied, supported and tested as shown in the 2014
West Side Comprehensive Plan. 2
o We also realize that diversifying the building materials is not enough to break-up the change in massing,
so we do hope more design is implemented than this.
o We appreciate your efforts to program front porches into your design to help blend into the
neighborhood, but we hope you understand that is not the only ask we have.
o We would appreciate your collaboration to further review this site for implementation of missing middle
housing. As a reference, you can review pages 22 – 29 3 for specifics related to RM-2 zoning or review
Impact Greenville’s “Missing Middle” Housing Study or the their “MMH Scan.”
- We know the lot/parcel dimensions of the RDV lots prove trivial without purchase/access to the adjacent
properties on Academy St. This portion of the project has it’s own variables of concern/questions but until more
information is available, it is difficult to formulate any feedback.
- Do the Apartment & townhome properties have to be connected?
- Do you have to have them connect with a road?
Greenspace
- As our neighbors can bear witness too, the current (5) families that will lose their homes have been able to enjoy
their greenspace to allow kids to play safely out of the street. Knowing that more families are candidates to
1
MMH Deep Dive: Testing + Solutions for Missing Middle Housing, 2019.09.30 publication:
2
2014 West Side Comprehensive Plan – pages 176-179 & 200 – 213.
3
MMH Deep Dive: Testing + Solutions for Missing Middle Housing, 2019.09.30 publication – pages 22-29

move in to your project, we strongly feel that preservation or design of more greenspace than what is currently
shown is needed.
- As we have seen in other neighborhoods, we have seen the implementation of greenspace.
o If you need examples, we are able to provide you with examples.
o We truly hope you can redesign this project to allow for more greenspace and also program this
open/green space into the design to help buffer the footprint of structures away from adjacent/existing
homes.
o Realizing that greenspace is an integral part of a “pocket neighborhood” we hope the walkability and
greenspace are programmed
During Construction
- Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan

o We hope that every effort will be utilized to work with the adjacent commercial properties on Academy
St Or another highly creative option can be used as an exit/entrance for any construction vehicle for this
project. As our neighbors have witnessed on Wardlaw St and Rhett st, road closures were frequent and
problematic, not to mention the parking of construction vehicles. We want to minimize as much
construction parking/traffic/usage of N. Calhoun & Ware st and limit Perry traffic to only the 100 block
where the (5) homes are being demolished.
o We also want to ensure any/all construction parking remains within the project boundaries and does
not spill onto the surrounding streets for street parking.
 This is an ask above and beyond what current city zoning requires as we have rarely seen
“construction mitigation traffic plans.” I ask that you be steward for this and work with the
zoning/planning department to minimize disruption to the neighborhood, specifically N.
Calhoun and Ware St.
- Construction Noise
o We also hope we can work with you regarding the city’s “noise ordinance” as it relates to construction. I
can promise you with the young families in the area, proactive communication and mutual
understandings will ease frustrations on both sides. I hope you can be a steward with your project
management team to assist us with these efforts.
 Like the construction mitigation traffic plan, we know this is an above and beyond ask. But
meaningful dialogue will help ease the tension that will be raised by the sound of construction.
This is a give and take topic on both sides, so patience and understanding will be needed on
both sides.
- Construction Fencing
o N. Calhoun & Academy is a major intersection for cut-through traffic and neighborhood traffic-
PEDESTRIAN and vehicular. With a high volume of right turns from N. Calhoun to Academy, we believe
visibility is key to safety so we ask that construction fencing be set away from the ROW and sidewalk to
maintain safe line of sight.
o IF construction fencing is being used for all/portions of the project, please utilize dark colored canvas.
o Will existing sidewalks be closed? If so, for how long?
Property Management
- Please elaborate who will be the property management entity for this project.
o Will this be a combination of entities or one sole entity responsible for the property maintenance and
management of the facility?
o Will property management have on site staff living on premise?

Public Art Opportunities
- What options will be made to integrate art in public places with this project?
o Will there be opportunity for murals?
o Will there be opportunities for 3D statues, monuments, or other multimedia options to connect the
project with the surrounding community?
 We will appreciate any effort to ensure art and public art is incorporated with your project and
we hope we can work with you on this type of work as these are usually very positively received
within neighborhoods.
 If so, we ask you to consider and solicit artists from our neighborhood
 We also ask you involve the neighborhood with any design/concept for any public art.
• We have an active arts committee within our neighborhood that has been working with
a variety of commercial projects in the “west end commercial” district and as such, we
believe this resource would benefit you, the residents of your community and the
Professional Services Rendered/referenced by the Neighborhood:
- IMPACT Greenville
- OPTICOS Design
- STANTEC
- SCDNR
- Avian Conservation Center
Reference Documents:
- MMH Deep Dive- Testing + Solutions for Missing Middle Housing, 2019.09.30
- MMH Scan – Analysis + Definition of Barriers to Missing Middle Housing, 2019.12.03
- MMH City of Greenville City Council Work session presentation 2020.02.24.
- Upstate Forever MMH Case Study
- 2014 West Side Comprehensive Plan
- EPA Green Parking Lot Resource Guide
- SC DNR Rare, Threatened and Endangered species of South Carolina by County
- 2015 Affordable Housing Strategy: City of Greenville
- Balancing Prosperity and Housing Affordability in Greenville: Findings and Recommendations from the
Affordable Housing Steering Committee 2016.09
- Affordable Housing Strategy Working Group Summary Recommendations for a Housing Trust Fund, 2017.09
- Downtown Greenville Strategic Master Plan - 2019
Thanks,
Ian Thomas
[email protected]

11/18/2020 Gmail - WENA & GHF - Follow-up
Ian Thomas <[email protected]>
WENA & GHF - Follow-up

Ian Thomas <[email protected]> Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:55 PM
To: Bryan Brown <[email protected]>, Tina Belge <[email protected]>
Cc: Joy Messner <[email protected]>
Bryan and Tina,

Thank you again for speaking with Joy and myself yesterday. It really benefits the neighborhood to have the opportunity
to speak in settings like this to ensure we can better understand the multiple variables at play for a developer but also
allows for transparency between all entities. I found this meeting extremely beneficial with understanding the affordable
housing component of the Ware St. project, so thank you for taking time to walk us through all of this information. I
appreciate your efforts to provide affordable housing options and it is clear that we need stable options for affordable
housing. I've attached the documents we reviewed and I have some additional feedback for your consideration as we
move into the weeks ahead of us.
2014 West Side Comp Plan:

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/305/West-End-Comprehensive-Plan-PDF?bidId=
This document should provide some context to what the West Side and West End have gone through and have come to
hope for with any new developments. With the abstract I've provided, design is focused on lower density that has been
tested and proven successful by a 3rd party. I know this concept is something the neighborhood has been hoping for so
this is partially why there is resistance against the proposed project because it is on the opposite end of the spectrum on
many levels. Many of us can comprehend 14-30 housing units on this site but in contrast to 100+ units, is there middle
ground that can be found?
Ware St. Story Board

This is an alternative concept of how to achieve density with more compatibility of the surrounding neighborhood. By no
means is this concept perfect but it clearly has principles to support neighborhood connectivity.
The compilation of our information has been done by our own efforts to ensure that our perspective and concerns have
validation and merit. We have connected with Lawrence Group, STANTEC, OPTICOS Design and two other urban
planning firms. We also consulted the 2015 Affordable Housing Strategy that the city published, the 2016 Balancing
Prosperity and Housing Affordability in Greenville, all MMH reports provided to Impact Greenville and ongoing programs
including the City's residential infill taskforce. All of these reports have guided us to support owner-occupied scenarios
that cultivate the ability for individuals to have a place to call home.
We know the real-estate market will continue to support more rental apartments and rental housing options in Greenville
as a whole, so like Nicholtown and Southernside, we would really like to see more owner-occupied opportunities, in
addition to options for less density. We really believe these types of efforts will really go the distance in restoring the worn
and tattered fabric of neighborhoods that have been through so much turmoil since the 1960's.
Lastly, I do understand the mechanics of this development has many benefits for all of the development partners and
future residents so this project will be promoted and marketed as an example of what private/public ventures can look like
in the future. Optically, I get it, this could be a flagship project for Cushman Wakefield, the city and GHF. My concern is
that these goals supercede everything else. Unlike what we have read and understood about Southernside's and
Nicholtown's projects, the involvement of our neighborhood organization appears to have fallen to the wayside of being
an integral partner in the creation and support of this project. Instead you've witnessed, a reactive neighborhood busy
trying to simply have information to have an informed converation so we can weigh-in with our comments. Either way,
after we move past this project, I hope our neighborhood will be invited to take a more active role on the planning of
similar projects in our neighborhood in the future.
I certainly don't want to detract from any efforts that have already been made to address our neighborhood concerns on
this project and we appreciate you and the development team for taking time to listen to us. I know the next couple of
weeks will prove to be very productive for all parties involved to help resolve these topics so thank you for your efforts of
being a community partner!
Sincerely,
Ian Thomas
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51c56fde2f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar3828643628610103196&simpl=msg-a%3Ar382864362… 1/2
11/18/2020 Gmail - WENA & GHF - Follow-up
President
[email protected]
3 attachments
Abstract - 2014 comp plan.pdf
835K
Low Density Example - Ware St. Development.pdf
322K
Ware St. Development - storyboard.pdf
1304K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51c56fde2f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar3828643628610103196&simpl=msg-a%3Ar382864362… 2/2
Abstract from 2014 West Side Comprehensive Plan
Key Points:
Maintain architectural scale, character, and frontage

along Perry Ave and Ware Street
Shift density to northwest corner @ Academy where it

belongs. Structure parking to limit surface parking lots
fronting Calhoun St.
For internal block addresses like this, create a continu-

ous mews that is connected via walkways to the public
streeets. Reinforce turf to support emergency vehicles for
access.
Remove cars from dominating the shared address and

shift to service by alleys to create both a buffer against
existing residential uses and a clean service and access
strategy.
Attached housing should reflect the surrounding charac-

ter and quality of housing, Use 2 unit and 3 unit buildings
to create a complementary address.
The small multi-family building fronting Perry, should be

designed to look like a Single Family residential building
Existing Zoning & Parcels

• Build a pedestrian environment
• Create a Mews Address around a park commons
• Attached Houses front the Mews spine
• Maintain scale of adjacent single family neighbor-

hood character - attached housing designed as
large, single family house character
• Density is redistributed between building types

from townhouses behind existing houses to MF
buildings on highly public addresses.
• move from surface parking to structured parking at

Calhoun and Academy - up to 6 story building
• Develop vehicular access from alleys that create a
buffer to existing properties and allow for rear ac-
cess to attached units
• Attached Houses front the Mews and Perry Ave.
• Maintain scale of adjacent single family neighbor-
hood character - attached housing designed as
large, sf houses
• Density is redistributed between building types
from townhouses behind existing houses to MF
buildings on highly public addresses.
• move from surface parking to structured parking at
Calhoun and Academy - up to 6 story building
Craftsman Style Duplex units designed with front porches for each unit fac- Classical style Style Duplex units de- Classical style Style 6- unit multi-family
ing the streets signed with front entry porches facing building fits into single family neighbor-
the street. hood on corner
Bottom left and middle: Different architectural character, same plan. Corner Street front for 6 unit multi-family
Duplex units designed with front porches for each unit facing streets or parks building along a single family street
Alley served units Oak Park Mews in Charlotte - new Historic Mews precedent in Louisville, Ky.
construction - attached units
Mews address in Milwauke, WI.
Newly constructed Mews address as infill townhouses in Charlotte, NC

2020.07.21 Rendering
2020.09.23 Rendering
Kevin R. Howard
From: Linda Faust <[email protected]>

Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2020 1:09 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; Ian Thomas; Shannon
Lavrin
Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM]
Attachments: Screen Shot 2020-08-17 at 11.13.35 AM.png
attachments.
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Linda Faust and I am a resident and homeowner with my husband and two small children at 307 Perry Ave in
the West End neighborhood of Greenville.
On Monday night, the developer team met with the neighborhood association for the first time, three business days after
being notified of the proposed development and change in zoning. Many questions and concerns were voiced, and there
was an overwhelming message that the West End neighborhood is strongly against rezoning the land for a 138 mixed use
development in an existing, primarily single family home, neighborhood. It is clear that the developers are not interested
in collaborating with the existing homeowners and residents, as comments and questions were brushed off. It is my
hopes that you take the time to listen to the residents who have invested in making this a desirable area to grow.
The following are some of the question and concerns that my husband and I raised during the meeting:
Schools -
Are our schools prepared to accept this significant increase in residents? The developers had not even considered this
impact. How can the developers state they’re creating a harmonious community when they aren’t thinking about what
happens once the tenants sign up for a lease? To me, this is even more evidence that the developers are not concerned
with how the effects of this development will impact the current neighborhood. Certainly the current zoning reflects what
the schools can handle in regard to an influx of new students as development occurs. I have two children who will attend
AJ Whittenburg and it is my hope that this highly recognized school doesn't become another overrun and burdened SC
school.
Traffic -
The increase from approximately 60 dwellings on N Calhoun, Perry, and Ware Street to almost 2.5 times that number will
have a significant impact on traffic. Page 83 of 166 of the proposal mentions that the study was conducted in October
2020 during COVID times and when schools are not back to normal (note that the Calhoun/Academy junction leads to AJ
Whittenburg school).
The developers have stated that the increase in traffic will be insignificant. This is not the case and acceptable data is not
being used to base their assumptions. The traffic study concludes (based on a different intersection from 2019 data) that
adding a 1% increase to this traffic to account for growth will be sufficient. Note that the developer references
Warlaw/Academy, a junction that is not at all comparable to Calhoun/Academy, as it is not used for school access or a
way to connect neighborhoods like Calhoun Street.
1
We believe a 1% increase is too small as, per the downtown master plan data published in 2019, the population of
downtown Greenville has grown 3.4% each year since 2010.
This area must remain walkable and bikeable to ensure family friendly growth in this noncommercial corridor.
Loss of greenspace -
As is stated on the Real Property Service legal notes/description, 108 Perry is reserved for a future park. This land is
currently greenspace with several mature pecan and oak trees. When this was brought up in Monday’s meeting, the
developers and architects brushed off concerns for the loss of the dwindling tree canopy in Greenville. I have also
attached a screenshot of the current RPS legal statement. In the proposed development, the mature trees will be leveled,
and minimal greenspace is accounted for. How is this a future park as the legal notes state?
The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Direct contrast to the master plan created in 2013 and rezoning in 2018 -
The master plan created in 2013 has a row of single-family homes (totaling 14 while preserving the existing 5 homes
along Perry) with a small office space and significant greenspace buffer on the 116 N Calhoun.
In 2018, Greenville City conducted a rezoning project to lay a framework for how the area should be developed in the
future. 116 N Calhoun was rezoned to RM-2, with the rest of the lots towards Academy Street zoned to RDV. This was a
long arduous process, with much neighborhood input, how can you now just throw this plan out the window.
It should be noted that my family, and other in the community, made decisions to improve our homes and even build new
homes, based on the direction that this rezoning plan laid out. It is a disservice to those homeowners to change the
zoning so soon after that project, on such little notice.
Commercial -
In the plan, there is a commercial store front proposed, mere feet from a single family home. If the developers are to use
examples such as The Green (on South Main Street), they should be planning for commercial use under the apartments
2
along Academy and not beneath the parking deck. Furthermore, a parking deck beside a residential home should not
be permitted.
If the planning commission is to grant zoning changes for this plan, I think it is necessary to search for evidence where
parking decks have been built successfully next to single family residential lots.
Parking -
Page 37 of the proposal document references parking. There are some basic calculations listed that show how they
came to the total required spaces of 193 off street parking. I’d like to discuss the asterisked comment:
“Until a specific tenant has been selected the parking allocated for the commercial space is 1 per 250SF. Hours of
operation for the commercial tenants will occur at hours when the residential users are at work and this will have less
impact of the overall parking count.”
So based on this, they are making the assumption that residents will be leaving their homes and commuting to work. This
statement does not take into account the fact that more people than ever are working from home due to COVID. Will
these spaces be enough for both residents and commercial visitors? What happens when the deck fills up? Are people
to park on Calhoun and Perry Street? We have all seen what happens during a baseball game: Parking bleeds over into
residential communities.
Community Stewardship -
It is concerning that all 138 units of this development will be made only available by rent. Don't you want more residents in
the downtown area who are invested in making this area a great place to raise families and enjoy surroundings in a clean
and prosperous environment?
While I understand that this letter may leave the impression that we are against any development on these empty lots,
that could not be further from the truth. Our family was extremely excited to buy a home downtown and we love reading
about the new and exciting projects that are popping up all over the city. We also believe that affordable housing is an
important part of Greenville's growth. However, it is key that the city not allow developers free reign to do what they will,
destroying the communities they move into in the process. Planning like this should be guided, with an overall strategy,
exactly like the 2018 rezoning project showcases.
Thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to discuss any of these points further with you via phone and you
can reach me at my number below.
Linda Faust
843-338-8388
3
Additional
Public Comment
Since February 2021
Kevin R. Howard

Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Kevin R. Howard
Cc: Anthony Thompson; Ross Zelenske; Jonathan B. Graham; Courtney Powell; Lillian
Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall
Subject: Re: Z-13-2020 another way the deck is stacked
attachments.
The one and done rules for developers sharing information with the neighborhood’s they impact if extremely unfair.
Having only two days to react to project changes and prepare to give testimony is unreasonable.
Letters must be received 4 days before the working session (our only opportunity to see changes), and 6 days before the
hearing. We will therefore never be able to address specific problems. In these unusual times (but expected to continue
for months to come), it is a major hurdle for citizens to get to the Convention Center to speak (and a health risk many
are not willing to take). 3 people that were willing to speak from the safety of their own homes against the Ware Street
Development were lost in the feedback loop and thus unable to have a voice.
How can you address this inequity?
Thank you,
Lois Ordway
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 1, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning,
This development will have to comply with the new tree ordinance at the time of permitting. We have
also requested an updated tree survey from the applicant for their revised rezoning documents.
Thank you,
<image001.jpg>
Kevin R. Howard
Senior Development Planner | Planning & Development

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:52 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]>
Cc: Anthony Thompson <[email protected]>; Ross Zelenske
1
<[email protected]>; Jonathan B. Graham <[email protected]>; Courtney Powell
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Z-13-2020
CAUTION: This email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any
links or opening attachments.
Well then, there is a problem. The tree survey submitted only shows trees 12” or larger, not 6”. And I
have measured several 6-8” in diameter trees at the corner of Calhoun and Academy alone. I’d be
happy to send you photos.
I look forward to an amended survey,

Lois Ordway
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 25, 2021, at 4:44 PM, Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
Ross Zelenske is a Development Planner with our department who joined us last fall.
Ross is now our liaison for the Planning Commission as well. The email posted was
simply me forwarding the deferral request from the applicant onto Ross for his records
and before sending our required public notice posting to the Greenville News for
publishing.
In regards to the tree question, I would refer you to the new tree ordinance which is
going before City Council this evening for its second and final reading for approval - link.
Tree surveys, conducted by a professional surveyor and arborist or landscape architect,
shall show all trees greater than six inches DBH to be removed and any tree three inches
DBH or greater to be retained.
Thank you,
Kevin R. Howard
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 4:24 PM
Cc: Anthony Thompson <[email protected]>
Subject: Z-13-2020
CAUTION: This email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before
clicking on any links or opening attachments.
2
Dear Mr. Howard,
I noticed a recent request you made to Ross Kelenske, another planner in your office, to
notify the Greenville News of St. Capital’s request to delay going before the Planning
Commission and it got me wondering.
Wondering if keeping the Greenville News updated in this way is usual? Almost like a
publicist.
And wondering how Mr. Kelenske fits into the Mosaic proposal?
On another matter, how big do trees have to be to be included in a tree survey

submitted to the City?
Thank you,
Lois Ordway
Sent from my iPad
3
Kevin R. Howard

Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:57 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard
Cc: Anthony Thompson; Ross Zelenske; Jonathan B. Graham; Courtney Powell
attachments.
Then perhaps this is the right time to request an update to the traffic study too.
The original one neglected to cover the intersection of Ware and Perry which has always been a tricky one (particularly
with so many pedestrians making their way to United Ministries’ day shelter, the food pantry and the Dollar Store). The
sharp turns without stop signs and vehicles parked for construction blocking the zig zag regularly have cars on the wrong
side of the road. And that’s before you add an additional 40? 50? cars exiting Mosaic via Ware.
Thank you,
Lois Ordway
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 1, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning,
This development will have to comply with the new tree ordinance at the time of permitting. We have
also requested an updated tree survey from the applicant for their revised rezoning documents.
Thank you,
<image001.jpg>
Kevin R. Howard

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:52 PM
Cc: Anthony Thompson <[email protected]>; Ross Zelenske
<[email protected]>; Jonathan B. Graham <[email protected]>; Courtney Powell
<[email protected]>
1
Kevin R. Howard

Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 1:40 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Anthony Thompson
Cc: Courtney Powell; Julia Campbell; Shannon Lavrin; Jonathan B. Graham; Edward Kinney
Subject: Re: Message from Ordway Lois E (2024915647) Z-13-2020
attachments.
I don’t know what gave you the impression that it was a small tree that they knocked over. I measured more than 30”
(10” above the rootball).
I’m having technical problems viewing The Mosaic proposal. I get to the storm water abatement system and it crashes
(and has done so repeatedly). Can you tell me if the corrected tree survey has been added to the application? Also the
tree ordinance discusses mapping border trees that might be impacted by construction. Has that been done? There are
massive Magnolia trees right up against the property line at 114 N. Calhoun & 32 Perry, as well as trees at 110 Perry, on
the former Davida Center on Academy and in back of homes along Calhoun and Ware Streets that could be impacted.
The Commissioners should know that there is an AU at the back of 114 Calhoun, so their discussion that noise and light
nuisances will have no impact on the back of property is not true. The photos must be more than two years old, since
that’s when the owner’s started construction.
A couple things about the application confuse me. On A5 Site Plan Logistics, I don’t see any dumpsters. Are they in the
underground parking area? Where is the loading dock? And the small, rectangular stormwater management tank (under
the Calhoun driveway) is shown with a row of trees on top of the tank and another row going along side it. Is this even
possible? I thought trees could not be planted above and around such tanks. And for that matter can a roadway go on
top?
Thank you for your assistance,

Lois Ordway
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 2, 2020, at 3:33 PM, Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
Lois,
Trees of that small size are not required to be included in a tree survey and were not included in the tree
survey provided by the applicant as part of their PD rezoning submittal. Trees below 3” in diameter are
not covered under our current tree ordinance or our proposed tree ordinance. Please let us know if you
have any additional tree related questions.
Thank you,
<image001.jpg>
1
Kevin R. Howard

Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:54 AM
Cc: Courtney Powell <[email protected]>; Julia Campbell <[email protected]>; Ian
Thomas <[email protected]>; Shannon Lavrin <[email protected]>; Jonathan B.
Graham <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Message from Ordway Lois E (2024915647)
Am I right to conclude, then, that St. Capital can now do what ever they want to the trees?
Were the saplings on the tree survey?
Thank you,
Lois Ordway
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 4:51 PM Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
Lois,
A Code Enforcement Officer visited the site earlier today and spoke with someone there. As you
mentioned, they indicated they are doing soil sampling and have drilled about 20 holes on the site.
They have not submitted for permits for any additional work on the site at this time. They have
removed some bamboo and small saplings but have not done any grading work or cut down any trees.
It appears the contractor has made a pathway from Ware St. over to N Calhoun St. to get around the
site and also staked some of the property lines. We will keep any eye out for any additional activity on
the site. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or see additional activity on the site as
well.
Thank you,
The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Kevin R. Howard
2
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:09 AM
Cc: Courtney Powell <[email protected]>; Julia Campbell <[email protected]>; Ian
Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Message from Ordway Lois E (2024915647)
Edward MacIntosh from ECS Engineering tells me they are tasked with taking down trees that are in the
way of taking soil samples. Is St.Capital allowed to take down trees before approval for the project?
Thank you,
Lois Ordway
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 9:52 AM Kevin R. Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning,
We will have our Zoning Code Enforcement Officer to the site to check it out and will let you know
what we find.
Thank you,
Kevin R. Howard
From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 8:52 AM
3
Subject: Message from Ordway Lois E (2024915647)
4
Kevin R. Howard

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 4:38 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; Shannon Lavrin;
Anthony Thompson
Subject: Z-13-2020
attachments.
To all those concerned,
I am writing today to ask for your "no" vote on application Z-13-2020, St. Capital's Ware Street Development.
It is particularly important at this time to protect an established single family home neighborhood, and aim for
smart, managed growth. As you will see, the negatives far outweigh the positives.
On the Positive Side:

1. A developer is willing to invest $25M in Greenville
2. Increased revenues for the City & County
3. Workforce housing units give individuals earning $42,000/yr
the buying power of $52,430, families of four earning
$60,000/yr. the buying power of $75,000
However:
5 low-middle income families will be uprooted and will not be returning (4 BR unit needs replaced with
3 BR reality).
No plans for owner-occupied affordable housing, and you simply can't build security much less wealth by paying rent
your whole life.
On the Negative Side:

1. Developer does not meet the higher standard required for a PD zoning
2. Fails "to include exceptional design that preserves critical environmental resources." Have NOT thought
outside the box. Plan is to clear cut trees
3. Does NOT "provide above average open space and recreational amenities."
4. Is NOT "compatible with surrounding land uses and neighborhood character."
5. Does NOT "maintain and enhance the value of surrounding properties."
The development conflicts with existing land ordinance for a zoning change"
6. NOT consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
7. Results in strip or ribbon development
8. Creates an isolated zoning district
9. Has a negative effect on the natural environment
The development conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan on many levels
10. Does NOT represent "a new way of growing"
11. Destroys 20% of the canopy of the West End neighborhood
12. Destroys the one and only uncultivated green space in the West End neighborhood
13. Fails to "Grow a Greener Future"
14. "Open spaces" do NOT "protect water, air, and plant areas"
15. Is NOT inclusive: $42K earnings required to rent are far above individual ($27K as stated
1
in the Comprehensive Plan) and family ($32K) incomes for persons of color
16. The West End neighborhood is not a Node
17. At 700-800% greater density than the surrounding neighborhood, it does little to
"preserve and protect an established residential neighborhood"
18. This is equally true regarding proposed building heights/issues of scale: developer
proposes 2-4 times the height of each and every neighboring building (e.g., 40'
apartment block and townhouses next to 1 1/2-story homes, and a 65' apartment block
next to a 1-story commercial building). All their talk of massing compares their building
blocks to each other, not the immediate neighborhood.
The development conflicts with goals stated in other City plans and studies:
19. The West End neighborhood is NOT and has NEVER been an area for planned high density
20. West End Comprehensive Plan (2014) e.g., stated goal of affordable home ownership,
21. Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (2020) e.g., stated goals for more housing for 1 and 2-person households
do NOT include 3 BR units, and desired studios are completely missing
22. Successful Infill Modeling, e.g. plan is NOT harmonious with respect to existing scale and massing
23. Missing Middle White Paper (Optics Design, 2020) defines different forms as duplexes, triplexes,
quads, and cottage courts, NOT apartment blocks. Heavy emphasis on "house-scale buildings"
and compatibility with existing neighborhood is NOT in evidence.
24. Greenville Housing Authority itself will be "cost burdened" by new build units that are 25-40%
more expensive.
Removing 60+ canopy trees will:
25. Place us in profound, generational tree debt. A 10" Birch tree took 35 years to get there;
A 60" Oak tree took more than 350 years.
26. Buffers therefore ineffective for decades
27. Lessens air quality (especially particulate matter)
28. Increases CO2 levels
29. Increases heat index
30. Increases home energy costs
The development is bad for the environment in other ways:
31. 75% impermeable
32. Non-existent tree protection plan
33. NOT sustainable: sustainability plan is, in its entirety, open spaces, most of which as covered
with asphalt
34. Demolished structures will add 400 tons of waste to our landfill
35. Demolished sidewalks and drives will add exponentially more
The development will adversely affect our quality of life:
36. Passive spaces "designed for use in an unstructured way" FAIL to do so as they are primarily
required setbacks that will be filled with buffering plantings (which is what happens when you have
a 13-sided property)
37. The central triangular active space will never have a single shade tree (due to underwater
stormwater management tanks)
38. That same space will only have shade at sunset
39. Up against 40' tall buildings, the houses along Calhoun will lose most of their natural light for
most of the day
40. This version of the development doubles the number of households that are highly negatively
impacted by attendant noise, light, headlights, heat & odors
41. A large parking lot instead of a garage is still a bad neighbor to 114 N. Calhoun & its ADU
(which shouldn"t be a concern for a property owner 6 lots in on a residential street).
42. Impossible to block or buffer noise, light, headlights, heat and odors when homes are across
from an entrance/exit (most impacted 4 on Ware, 2 on Perry, 5 on Calhoun)
43. These are 24/7 nuisances/upsets
44. Would any development in the middle of the block, negatively impacting neighbors on all
2
4 sides, be welcome?
45. This sets a bad precedent for an already overtaxed neighborhood, and would further endanger
the character of the West End neighborhood
Regarding just plain bad design:
46. A single trash and recycling hub that is outdoors and in the center of a 4.5 acre property is
impractical (how far to carry trash? drive to recycling?)
47. Ware Street at a width of 25' cannot handle trash, delivery or moving trucks as it is.
48. With a walkability score of 60, 1.4 miles to the closest grocery store, and no bike lanes,
people will not give up their cars
49. Development manages to have not enough off-street parking, while, at the same time,
too much paved expanses already. Fewer units means fewer problems
There will be a significant increase in on-street parking (demonstrated by parking averages
for the West End Commons and The Greene)
50. Which will impede traffic flow
51. Increase danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, and parked and moving vehicles
52. The traffic study is seriously flawed: COVID has people working from home, venturing out less,
schools were closed, as was the State Unemployment Office. It also fails to include the zigzag
intersection of Ware and Perry
Developer is "building a brand":
53. And the neighborhood and the people who have lived here as long as 50 years are an impediment
to their bottom line (as evidenced by their stonewalling and playing fast and loose with the
truth from the get go)
54. Claims that they can"t make the numbers work (if they have any less than a 53% increase on
currently permitted zoning) are bogus:
A. They were given property worth a million dollars for ten dollars.
B. The revenue lost for the workforce housing allowances on a 90-unit development is
approximately $65K/year or $765,000 for the whole of the lease agreement
C. The sale of 18 units in 20 years time will yield millions and millions in profits.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
55. In just the past 4 years, the West End neighborhood has seen the addition of hundreds and hundreds
of apartments, condos, and townhouses. Those numbers will continue to balloon with the com-
pletion of the McClaren and .408 Jackson. This is not smart, managed growth.
Whew! I hope I have made my case, and hope that you will stick to your pledge of stewardship not only
of the West End but the entire City of Greenville and vote NO on application Z-13-2020.
It takes a village.
We can (and must!) do better.
Respectfully yours,
Lois Ordway
213 Perry Avenue
3
Kevin R. Howard

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:40 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; Shannon Lavrin;
Anthony Thompson
Subject: the Ware St. proposed development

attachments.
To all those involved,
To all parties involved:

I am writing to all of you, imploring you to vote a resounding NO on application Z-13-2020, St. Capital’s Ware Street
Development.
You know, the current zoning of RDV and RM-2 only permits appx 90 units total for those parcels and the developer wants
138 units. I am reiterating what many of our neighbors as well as myself,
have written to you about. We as a neighborhood do care! We did move to this neighborhood and become a part of it's
unique qualities because that is what we desired and paid good money for. I didn’t expect this overcrowded- for major
profit development to create a new precedence of 'what not to do'. I don’t understand why this development is still in
consideration outside of someone’s financial gains that outweigh all rightful considerations.
I believe you know the following and I beg you to do what is right for the city and this neighborhood. Require this
developer to go back down to 90 units, keep more green space and so much more!
The City of Greenville Code of Ordinances on Land Management, Chapter 19, Article 19-3.3.3.N (paraphrasing) states that
the purpose for a PD is ”…intended to encourage innovative land planning and site design concepts that conform to
community quality-of-life benchmarks and that achieve a high level of aesthetics….and allowing increases in base
densities….when such increases can be justified by superior design or the provision of additional amenities such as public
open space”; and “In return for flexibility…..PD’s are expected to include exceptional design that preserves critical
environmental resources; provides above-average open space and recreational amenities…..insures compatibility with
surrounding land uses and neighborhood character….and provides greater efficiency in the…provision of roads…and other
infrastructure.”
To those intentions, expectations and requirements of the Greenville City Code of Ordinances on PD’s, the developer has
NOT presented a superior design, which is required for a zoning change consideration.
The developer does NOT have enough space on the parcels to combine living space, green space, parking for more than
one vehicle per unit, traffic lanes to accommodate trash, moving trucks, emergency vehicles and tenant traffic, so
therefore, the developer has NOT presented a design providing “above-average open space and recreational
amenities”. The developer has NOT presented a design providing “greater efficiency in the…provision of roads…and other
infrastructure.”
I live next to several open parking lots with stadium style bright parking lot lights that shine in my windows every night
and morning. The developers believe that removing a garage and placing a huge parking lot is going to be an
improvement. All it does it shift the noise and light from one location to another. It is not a solution for this location. Thus
1
I reiterate, as a testament to all the voices raised in opposition to the project from the immediate surrounding neighbors
and other neighbors located within the West End Neighborhood Association, the developer has definitely NOT presented
a design which “insures compatibility with surrounding land uses and neighborhood character”.
We have great concerns that the quality of our neighborhood and our ability to live and work in our neighborhood will
suffer severe negative impacts from the amount of traffic added to our residential streets, the overflow parking to the
streets, the loss of the trees and vegetation from this site, the noise and light from the increased population of tenants to
our neighborhood and the potential degradation by a large influx of tenants who have no vested interest to the
neighborhood beyond their next month’s rent check. We have an equally large concern that our property values will
suffer.
Once again, ask yourself this question, “ Who is this development for?
Again, we implore you to vote NO in order to protect our quality of life in our West End Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Christen and Frank Palombo, 15 N. Leach St.
2
Kevin R. Howard
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 4:45 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Lillian Flemming; Russell Stall; Shannon Lavrin;
'[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Ware Street Development Project

attachments.
We appreciate this opportunity to share our strong objection to the Ware Street development plan Z-13 2020
proposed by St. Capital. With all due respect, we believe as does every neighbor we have consulted with on
the issue, that the plan is ill conceived and fails to live up to the high standards that Greenville stakeholders
have set for residential and community development. Moreover, I wager that if the project planners actually
lived in this neighborhood, they would join in the objection for reasons which I will summarize below.
The West End is not and never has been an area planned for high density. The addition of 148 units to this
community will guarantee pedestrian and vehicular overcrowding, traffic jams, pollution and a host of other
issues which will negatively impact both residents and businesses. The Capital St. plan as presently crafted,
does not convincingly address overcrowding, ample green space, parking for more than one vehicle per unit,
traffic lanes to accommodate trash, moving trucks, emergency vehicles and tenant traffic.
The developer has also not yet given any details on exterior finishes and no rendering of what the complex
might look like even though many of us have asked repeatedly for such renderings.
The neighborhood cannot be expected to know whether the developer will provide a design that will “achieve
a high level of aesthetics” as required by the Greenville City Code of Ordinances. If this development is
allowed to proceed absent the appropriate planning and disclosures, we believe that there will be severe
negative quality of life and economic consequences for the West End.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns and we appreciate your service.
Regards,
Ricardo and Coreen Urbina
1
Ross Zelenske
From: Joy Messner <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 4:34 PM
To: Kevin R. Howard; Planning
Cc: Lillian Flemming; Dorothy Dowe; Russell Stall; Ian Thomas; Ian Thomas; Anthony
Thompson
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Z-13-2020, Application for Rezone
Attachments: Questions and Comments - Application for Mosaic at West End Proposed
Development.pdf
attachments.
Good Afternoon,
In preparation of the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting on March 18, 2021, I want to thank you for receiving our
public comment as a property owner that is located within 500’ of the application site for rezoning of lots by Saint
Capital, LLC known as the Mosaic at West End, Application Number Z-13-2020. These area lots are located along Ware
Street, Perry Avenue, Calhoun Street and Academy Road.
Attached you will find a 4-page document of comments and questions that we have regarding this matter.
Please feel free to call us to discuss.
Sincerely,
Joy & Kemper Messner

110 Ware Street
856-669-9949
[email protected]
1
Date: March 1, 2021
To: Planning and Development Staff, City of Greenville and Other Interested Parties
Subject: Input from a Local Citizen Regarding the Proposed Development, Mosaic at West End
Application #: Z-13-2020
Comments & Questions

Submitted by: Joy & Kemper Messner, 110 Ware Street, Greenville, [email protected], 856-669-9949
As residents of the West End, we look forward to the well-planned growth and revitalization of our community.
We have a vested interest in seeing housing options that are beneficial across income levels (as well as
commercial/business and recreation options that better the community). And, we have an interest in how the
land within our neighborhood is zoned to accommodate smart and strategic growth. Therefore, we have some
questions and comments concerning the planned development of the Mosaic at West End and the application for
a zoning change.
Opportunity Zone/Tax Breaks/Who Really Benefits:

The developer/investor will receive tax benefits from this Opportunity Zone development through temporary
capital gains deferral, basis step-up of previous gains invested, and a permanent exclusion on long-term holdings
of 10 years or more. But, while these tax breaks enable the investor/developer to accumulate more wealth, it
includes no requirements to ensure that local residents benefit from investments receiving the tax break.
Maximizing developer/investor profit in this project as a rental community really does NOT better our
neighborhood or families who could be better served through the benefits of homeownership in building
wealth, while also creating more stable communities. Perhaps the price to purchase the ground is too high – so
then maybe this area should no longer be considered an Opportunity Zone? Probably. Really, though, the right
thing to do would be to develop it as Affordable & Missing-Middle Homeownership and really help folks to the
path of wealth and homeownership, while also improving our neighborhood and the economy of the city. And
why does the developer/investor make this comment on p. 23, “the development, though primarily a rental
community, will also look for ways to provide opportunities for home ownership within the development.”
How? When? Where? Which Units? What price points?
Density:
Many of the questions, comments and concerns of my West End Neighbors center on DENSITY. Why should we
change the current zoning from RM-2 & RDV to PD? The impact of this higher density request are concerns over
traffic, parking, greenspace, scale and height of buildings, environmental impact, and school impact to name a
few. As the zoning currents stands, the property in question is zoned for 88.9 housing units. When first
approached by the developers, there were 104 units proposed (68 towns, 36 apartments), well above the
permitted number of units. NOW, they are asking us to “gulp down” an even higher density request of 138 units
to be placed in neighborhood blocks consisting primarily of single family homes and be negatively affected.
Criteria for Zoning Amendments:

We do NOT feel that the standards for rezoning found in Section 19-2.3.2(E)(2) are being met through some of the
criteria for zoning amendments.
Criteria:
1. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: The West End is at a DISADVANTAGE in that prior
to this project application, we were NEVER afforded a comprehensive plan for our
neighborhood. And, NOW, we are being taken advantage of by investors, developers, and at
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting (March 18, 2021 &
Page 1 of 4
times, the city itself. In 2018, we did work with the city and others to REZONE areas in our
community to a more cohesive plan which would help to bring strategic growth and block
commercial seepage into residential neighborhoods. And, I believe back in 2014 we worked
with the city to sketch a proposed plan (of the lots in question) to have single family homes
built. Therefore, we do not believe that simply rezoning RM-2 and RDV lots to a PD zoning is
consistent with future land use designation. In essence, one would be creating a ZONING
ISLAND of PD in the middle of RM-2 zoning.
2. Addresses a demonstrated community need: The community need for this area is “missing
middle housing” and the current zoning of RM-2 and RDV should suffice. More
HOMEOWNERSHIP is needed since our tract (tract 7) is OUTPACING every other tract with
more permits and contributes to more than half of the total investment in the city as it relates
to “opportunity zones,” and particularly rental units. As an area one of the largest
percentages for new apartment buildings/rentals in the city, we are deeply concerned
about the number of rentals being built. The demonstrated need in our community is more
MISSING MIDDLE HOMEOWNERSHIP; and with that brings more stable and vital communities
that are invested in their neighborhood.
3. Compatible with surrounding uses: Surrounding uses include primarily single-family
residential units. The proposed PD with INCREASED density over that which is allowable from
the current RM-2 and RDV is NOT compatible with the single family properties surrounding
these parcels.
4. Promotes logical development pattern: The proposed PD zoning designation does NOT fit
with the pattern of the neighborhood in regards to density, so therefore NO need to change
the zoning.
5. Resulting “strip” or “ribbon” commercial development: This zoning change to PD creates
strips or ribbons of commercial development which is not an applicable use for design
standards.
6. Isolated Zoning District: Changing the zoning of these parcels to PD will create an isolated
zoning district of high density housing and commercial units surrounded by RM-2 single
family properties.
7. Surrounding Property Values: This zoning change will create adverse impacts on surrounding
properties – with more rentals, the neighborhood will have less of the stability and less
vitality to the neighborhood that HOMEOWNERSHIP brings.
8. Public Facilities and Services: What sort of increased public facilities and services would this
PD bring to the neighborhood? Greenspace? Playgrounds? Recreation? Childcare? Art?
Music? Education? Public Services?
9. LASTLY: It is in my understanding that in return for flexibility in site design and
development, planned developments are expected to include EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN that
preserves the critical environmental resources; provide above-average open space and
recreational amenities; incorporate creative design in the layout of buildings, open space,
and circulation; ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and neighborhood
character; and provide greater efficiency in the layout and provision of roads, utilities, and
other infrastructure. Does the planned intent of the Mosaic at West End provide this? I think
not. The greenspace given is minimum and does not give any significant value in recreation,
except passive open space.
(see additional questions and comments on next 2 pages)
Page 2 of 4
QUESTIONS & ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Site Plan: Density/Parking/Roads – Density is over the limit that is currently allowed in the zoning.
1. What’s the benefit to our neighborhood to rezone the land to allow for more density? How exactly are
you measuring the “added value” this project will bring to our neighborhood?
2. In 2018, the city reviewed and approved new zoning changes to better reflect the growth of the West End
neighborhood. RM-2 and RDV zoning was put in place to assure that appropriate structures would be
located on lots in this RESIDENTIAL neighborhood of primarily single-family homes.
3. NO TRAFFIC STUDY was done for the INTERSECTION of WARE STREET with RHETT AND PERRY!!
The assumption is that this intersection is of no concern when it will greatly be affected by traffic. Even
one of the members of the Planning Commission, who is familiar with our neighborhood, acknowledged
this as an oversight at the last meeting with the developer. This intersection will see much more traffic as
folks who are coming off of Main Street and cutting down Ware Street to get to not only the Garden
Apartments at the bottom of Ware Street, BUT also to the larger Apartment Complex at the corner of
Academy. Ware Street, with its very narrow width, cannot handle the increased amount of traffic
traveling to these apartments? And, how does the street’s width effect the negotiation of turns by fire
trucks, ambulances, school buses, and moving trucks into the development, especially if there are
cars/trucks already parked along the street curbs? Large trucks already have a difficult time getting down
the street with a car/truck parked along the curb. This entrance off of Ware Street into the development
should not be allowed. Also, exiting Ware Street at the stop sign on the elbow of Rhett and Perry is
DANGEROUS. It is hard to see around the corner with the increase of parking that is happening on these
streets.
4. Since this will be a rental community, residents will be more transient. How does this plan address the
increased amount of moving trucks navigating and parking on the narrow streets within the
development and also perimeter streets?
5. 1.19 parking spaces (164 spots for 138 units): Allowing just 1.19 parking spaces for each unit is
NOT enough (see pg. 21 of Section 3) AND, ONLY 9 visitor spaces & 6 commercial spaces – this
must be an oversight! How was this number chosen? How will this affect the parking on
residential streets? Most folks that rent a townhome use their garage or part of their garage for
storage, so that would account for one of your required parking spaces, reducing the amount of
available parking. Once again, the DENSITY of this project is too HIGH!!
6. Will there be parking permits or restrictions on roads within the development ? What type of
parking restrictions will be made to outlying roads like Perry, Calhoun, and Ware Streets?
Housing Units:
7. Will you be mixing the affordable units across all housing types and prices?
8. What will the price points be for these housing units – affordable and market rate units?
9. What happens when you cannot “fill” the units at the stated price points? We already have an
abundance of vacant apartment rentals in the community and more apartment complexes being built.
10. Who maintains ownership of the rentals? For how long? Who will be the management company? Will
they have an on-site office for ALL types of rental units?
11. What types of rules will be a part of the rental community?
12. Can any of these housing units be sold for ownership rather than just a community of rentals? What
was meant by the comment by the developer on pg. 23, “The development, though primarily a rental
community, will also look for ways to provide opportunities for home ownership within the development.”
Page 3 of 4
Aesthetic Compatibility:
7. Why did you switch from the originally planned townhomes that were to be located at the end of Ware
Street to a 3-story apartment complex? How is a 3-story apartment complex aesthetically compatible
with the predominately one-story single-family homes located along Ware Street?
Environmental Impact:
8. There is already lots of flooding on the other side of Academy Street – how will this impact the adjacent
neighborhood community?
9. Greenspace is INADEQUATE! PD’s are to provide MORE greenspace/amenities.
10. How will residents within this community dispose of larger items? Sofas? Mattresses? Etc. Since it’s a
rental community, and more transient, there will be an increase in larger items being disposed.
11. Has a tree study been conducted? Are you going to save, relocate or replace trees?
12. Will you be allowing pets? If so, how many per unit? Do you have designated areas for residents to walk
dogs and receptacles to dispose of dog waste?
13. What type of noise or light pollution is created by this development? Smells from trash receptacles?
Educational Impact:
20. How will our local schools be impacted by the development? Have any conversations with the local
school board? No one has yet to answer this question.
21. What is the approximate increase in students that the development might bring to our elementary,
middle, and high schools? What about childcare options for families that live in these new units?
22. Is there adequate room in the schools for the increase in students from the development?
Page 4 of 4
Ross Zelenske
From: Janis McNinch <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Ross Zelenske
Subject: Ware Street Development
attachments.
Mr. Zelenske:
I have been informed that you are the contact for the Ware Street Development. I have some questions and concerns
that maybe you can help me with.
My husband and i live at 212 Perry Ave. and have lived there for the past seven years. I love my house and I love my
neighborhood. I’m having a difficult time understanding why a development like the Ware Street Development would
be allowed to proceed.
If I stand at the end of my driveway I can look down Perry Ave. and see the Green Apartments. if i turn around in my
driveway I can see the Stone Apartments located behind my house. My question is why is there a need to build another
apartment complex within two blocks of each other? The Green Apartments and all the other newer apartment
complexes on the West End are not filled. As a matter of fact they all have “Now Leasing” signs and special leasing
deals. What am I missing?
Also, lately I have been reading about how the City of Greenville is concerned about losing all it’s greenspace downtown.
That there is now an effort to keep some of the existing greenspace. Also, the effort to keep as many mature trees as
possible because we are also losing our tree canopy. Yet if the Ware Street Development is allowed to proceed
greenspace will be replaced by more apartments and townhouses and a number of large mature trees will have to be
cut down. Again, what am I missing?
One of the most tragic results of this proposed development is that a beautiful young family is being forced to sell their
home and move because they do not want either a parking garage or parking lot right next to their beautiful home. So
the one thing all neighborhoods want, a young family with a beautiful little girl, is being forced out so that temporary
renters can have a place to live. Why are the individuals who are willing to invest in homes and long term residence
being ignored so that renters are prioritized?
If developed correctly, the Ware Street property could be a lovely cluster of both regular housing and affordable housing
that people buy and can take pride in.
Lastly, the traffic situation. Today I drove down Main Street and after passing the Green Apartments I turned right onto
Perry Ave. I was almost hit head on by a pick up truck that was coming up Perry Ave turning onto Main Street. Vehicles
where parked along the whole right hand side of the street and therefore only one car could go up or down Perry. Perry
Ave, Ware Street and Calhoun Street cannot accommodate the excess traffic the Ware Street development will
generate. The developer is only designating one and a half parking spaces per unit. Really? Still again, what am I
missing?
1
Thank you for your time. If you could answer some of my concerns I would greatly appreciate it but I understand the
volume you have to deal with. I just needed to get all this off my chest.
Thank you again.
Janis McNinch
212 Perry Ave.

Mosaic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mosaic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mosaic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ross Zelenske

From: Bryan De Bruin <[email protected]>

Bryan De Bruin, Esq.

Please send all title requests to [email protected]

De Bruin Law Firm, LLC

Click here to submit a review:

From: Ross Zelenske <[email protected]>

General Site Items:

Apartment Building on Academy St & N. Calhoun St

Apartment Building on Ware St

-Number of units reduced from 10 to 8.

-Reconfigured drive entrances on Perry Ave.

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

DEVELOPER HOUSING PARTNER

CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

Section 2 - Affordable Housing

Section 3 - Proposed Development

Section 5 - Architectural Design

Parcel 1 – Tax Map #: 0079000203506 Parcel 9 – Tax Map #: 0079000201300

Parcel 2 – Tax Map #: 0079000203507 Parcel 10 – Tax Map #: 0079000202800

Parcel 3 – Tax Max #: 0079000203508 Parcel 11 – Tax Map #: 0079000202700

Parcel 4 – Tax Map #: 0079000203500 Parcel 12 – Tax Map #: 0079000202600

Parcel 5 – Tax Map #: 0079000203509 Parcel 13 – Tax Map #: 0079000202501

Parcel 6 – Tax Map #: 0079000203510 Parcel 14 – Tax Map #: 0079000202500

Parcel 7 – Tax Map #: 0079000201100 Parcel 15 – Tax Map #: 0079000201900

Parcel 8 – Tax Map #: 0079000201200 Parcel 16 – Tax Map #: 0079000201400

1. Greenville Housing Fund Website: https://greenvillehousingfund.com/strategic-plan/

2. Greenville Housing Fund Website: https://greenvillehousingfund.com/strategic-plan/

3. GHF-GCRA Affordable Housing Strategy, Page 3 of 55.

4. GHF-GCRA Affordable Housing Strategy, Page 3 of 55.

5. GHF-GCRA Affordable Housing Strategy, Page 13 of 55.

Photo Key Plan:

2. Corner of Academy and Calhoun St lookings towards project site.

3. View of project site from Calhoun St.

4. View towards project site along Calhoun St

5. Corner of Perry Ave and Calhoun St looking towards project site.

6. View along Perry Ave at intersection of Memminger St.

7. View along Ware St looking towards project site.

8. Dead end at Ware St looking towards project site.

Scope & Building Types

1. Apartment Building 1: A five-story mid-rise apartment building featuring 1, 2 & 3 bedroom

2. Apartment Building 2: A three-story building made up of two story townhomes with a

Allowed Uses & Restricted Uses

Unit Mix Density

Setbacks & Buffer Design

The following building setbacks are proposed for the development:

Proposed Building Heights:

Parking Types & Ratios

Provided Off-Street Parking:

Apartments: 104 Units @ 1 Space/Bed = 145 Spaces (1.4 per unit)

Greenspace & Landscape Design

Active vs. Passive Greenspaces:

Pedestrian Access & Site Circulation

Vehicular Access & Site Circulation

BUILDING HEIGHTS & DENSITY

ACADEMY ST TALLER BUILDING FACES

TOWNHOUSE FORMS & FRONT

Designed for Human Experience

Mixed Incomes Efficient Design Enjoyable

Sustainable Variety of Unit Types Community Oriented