DANA COMMUNITY PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA

Transcription

1 DANA COMMUNITY PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA WHEN: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 WHERE: Dana Community Center at Dana Park 6:30 p.m Upward Road Hendersonville, NC ITEMS: 1. Called to Order. 2. Presentation and Group Discussion: Dana Community Park Conceptual Master Plan, Anthony Starr (30 minutes) 3. Presentation and Group Discussion: Community Character & Design Renderings, Jason Epley, Benchmark CMR, Inc. 4. Presentation and Continued Group Discussion: Land Use and Development, by Matt Cable. 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes July 19, 2010 August 3, Important Dates/Staff Reports. 7. Adjournment.

2 Dana Community Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 19, 2010 The Dana Community Plan Advisory Committee met on June 19, 2010 at 6:30 PM. Present committee members included Mr. Tommy Thompson, Chair, Mr. Jeff Justus, Vice Chair, Mr. Roger Byers, Mr. Harry Allen Fozzard, Mr. Jim Gedwellas, Mr. Daniel McConnell, Mr. Lee Roy Nicholson, and Ms. Norma Pryor. Mr. Tommy Laughter, Mr. Matt Matteson, Mr. Tim Murphy, and Mr. James M. Revis were absent. Planning staff included Anthony Starr, Planning Director; Autumn Radcliff, Senior Planner; Matthew Cable, Planner; Parker Sloan, Planner; and Patrick Rust, Planning Intern. Mr. Jason Epley and Mr. Richard Smith, with Benchmark CMR, Inc., were also present at the meeting. Mr. Starr opened the meeting by reminding the committee of the previous meeting discussion. Mr. Starr indicated that Mr. Epley and Mr. Smith were a consulting firm that the Dana Community Plan Advisory Committee would work with to develop a visual representation of the committee s desires in terms of community character and design. Mr. Epley then began guiding the group discussion regarding community character and design. He first asked the committee what is special and unique about the area, and how they thought they might maintain and preserve this uniqueness. He followed this question with an explanation of how the consulting firm prepared renderings intended to reflect the input received. During the course of the meeting it was determined that renderings of Downtown Dana were desirable as were renderings/aerial plan Upward Road in the vicinity of Interstate 26. The committee did not support the development of renderings at the Howard Gap Road/Dana Road intersection given that they did not expect development in that area in the near future. in order to create a Mr. Justus called the meeting to order. Mr. Cable introduced the first item of discussion regarding the recommendations for Sections 3.5 (Community Facilities and Public Services) and 3.5 (Transportation). Mr. Cable explained that these recommendations would, if the committee agreed be included in the Draft Plan following the committee s discussion that night. Mr. Epley recorded the committee s comments for use in the preparation of the renderings. Comments regarding Upward Road area included the following: The interchange needs to be attractive (landscaping) (Mr. Justus) New median along Upward Road should be landscaped and treed (Mr. Justus) Heavy commercial, industrial, and residential development should occur at the interchange (Mr. Justus) Commercial and industrial development should be clustered (Mr. Fozzard) Residential development should be included as the area needs a workforce because the businesses will need employees and customers (Mr. Thompson) Parking should be provided behind with a planting strip in front (Mr. Gedwellas) Adequate parking should be provided behind businesses (Mr. Fozzard) Utility (telephone and power) poles need to be removed (Mr. Justus) Decorative lighting (including traffic lights) should be installed (Mr. Justus) Signs should not be as restricted as has occurred in areas like Hilton Head (Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Justus) 1

3 Businesses and development should maintain individual identity because can become overregulated and look the same as everywhere else (such as Biltmore Park) (Mr. Gedwellas) The area should not look like: o Airport Road and the complex containing the Target and Lowes (Mr. Fozzard) o Lake Norman area in terms of design and buildings (Mr. Nicholson) The area should be developed like MarketPlace Commons in Myrtle Beach SC (Ms. Pryor) Comments regarding Downtown Dana included the following: Redevelopment should occur throughout the downtown Dana area including Stepp Grocery and the Post Office Commercial development should be more intense, at the neighborhood scale, with limited amounts of open space as the intention should be to preserve open space elsewhere in the Planning Area (Mr. Justus) The area should be developed as a town center where individuals can walk, live, and work but should appear more rural with green space (Mr. Gedwellas) The area should include a convenience store, gas station, restaurants, and health services (dentist, vet, etc.) among others (Mr. Justus) Accommodations for biking/walking should be provided (Ms. Pryor) The consultant should prepare a conceptual layout of the area around Downtown Dana (Mr. Gedwellas) The committee felt using an image containing Stepp Grocery and the Post Office would be best Mr. Epley thanked the committee for the input and indicated that he should be able to produce the renderings based on the committee s feedback. He intends to return at the August 31, 2010 meeting for the committee s review of the renderings and to discuss any additional modifications prior to completion of the renderings for inclusion in the plan. Mr. Nicholson then asked the committee if it would briefly discuss the Dana Community Park. He indicated that in the prior week he had spoken with other members of the community about the park and the need for improvements. He inquired about the committee s feelings if the community were to seek to end the lease with the County and begin running the park itself again. Mr. Starr provided that this may not be the best method to achieve the goals of the committee, that the County would certainly be willing to accept the donations/involvement of community citizens to make improvements to the park, and that maintenance/management of a park by a community group can have other pitfalls and problems that County maintenance/management avoid. Mr. Starr recommended the committee consider the issue at a later meeting and that this meeting be held at the Dana Community Building in Dana Park. The committee agreed that either its August 3, 2010 meeting or August 31, 2010 meeting should be held in the Dana area and that the committee should, at minimum visit the park and community building. Mr. Thompson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Chairman 2

4 Dana Community Plan Advisory Committee Minutes August 3, 2010 The Dana Community Plan Advisory Committee met on August 3, 2010 at 6:30 PM. Present committee members included Mr. Tommy Thompson, Chair, Mr. Jeff Justus, Vice Chair, Mr. Roger Byers, Mr. Jim Gedwellas, Mr. Matt Matteson, Mr. Tim Murphy, Mr. Lee Roy Nicholson, and Ms. Norma Pryor. Mr. Harry Allen Fozzard, Mr. Tommy Laughter, Mr. Daniel McConnell, and Mr. James M. Revis were absent. Planning staff included Anthony Starr, Planning Director; Autumn Radcliff, Senior Planner; Matthew Cable, Planner; Parker Sloan, Planner; and Patrick Rust, Planning Intern. Mr. Cable opened the meeting by providing the committee with drafted recommendations for Section 3.6, Economic Development. The committee reviewed the proposed recommendations and did not provide any additional modifications to the proposed modifications. The committee approved the following recommendations for inclusion in the draft Dana Plan: Goal E1. The Upward Road interchange along Interstate 26 should be recognized as a principal gateway into Henderson County, Dana, Hendersonville, and Flat Rock. This interchange and surrounding area should be developed to draw businesses, tourists, County residents, and the residents of the surrounding region. E1.1. Economic development at regional scale should be focused at the interchange and in the surrounding area. E1.2. Aesthetic improvements to the interchange should be considered. Improving the aesthetics of the interchange will encourage economic growth at the interchange and will promote a positive perception of the Dana Community, Henderson County, and nearby municipalities. The County should consider: 1. Participating in a joint effort with NCDOT, municipalities, business owners, and citizens to make aesthetic improvements to the interchange, 2. Employing design professionals to develop a plan for landscaping, lighting, and signage treatments at the interchange and in surrounding areas, and 3. Encouraging consistent land development regulation application by the County and City of Hendersonville for properties located at the interchange and in surrounding areas. Goal E2. Encourage higher density residential development in the areas near and mixed within nonresidential development at the interchange. Residential development of this type will provide consumers for and employees of the nonresidential development at the interchange. Goal E2. Promote high-tech and research and development operations in the Dana Planning Area in light of the Planning Area s adjacency to Blue Ridge Community College. Mr. Cable then provided an overview of Section 3.7, Land Use and Development, to provide the committee with information regarding existing land use, zoning and future land use plans for the Dana community. He explained that many of the recommendations of this section will include recommendations for zoning changes, but reminded the committee that land use and development regulations can be more generalized and broad sweeping or very specific. Mr. Cable explained that the committee had a number of options as to how to approach discussing land use and zoning regulations in the Planning Area. He illustrated an interactive map that the 1

5 committee would have available to utilize during its discussion. Mr. Thompson felt the committee should focus on some of the more difficult areas of the plan first, in terms of zoning regulations, and recommended that the committee consider the I-26 interchange at Upward Road. The committee first discussed the existing Office Institutional zoning district located on South Allen Road. Mr. Justus was concerned that the OI zoning application might be to limiting. Mr. Matteson explained that Blue Ridge Community College was not seeking additional lands currently, but would likely seek lands (also zoned OI) and located adjacent to the college to the north and west (not the area under consideration). Mr. Cable explained, in detail, the permitted uses and applicable standards of the OI district. After further discussion in light of the existing Draft Plan s recommendations to attract high-tech and research and development operations, and the relatively limited supply of OI zoning in the County, the committee determined that OI zoning should remain in place in the Planning Area. The committee then moved east and began review of the area zoned Residential One (R1) and located between McMurray Road and Ballenger Road. According to Mr. Cable, the Comprehensive Plan and more recent Industrial/Business Park study, recommend that all or portions of this area be zoned industrial to allow for high-intensity industrial development. After further discussion the committee felt this area should be rezoned from R1 to Industrial (I). The committee further considered rezoning the area between Orchard Road and Howard Gap Road, currently zoned Residential Two Rural (R2R) to R1. All committee members agreed that this would be appropriate in light of the existing development pattern and potential for additional utilities in the area. The committee discussed potential I zoning, at the request of the current property owners, south of Crest Road, but did not wish to proceed with any zoning change at this time, nor did they wish to recommend approval for the individuals to seek a formal rezoning of the property while the Community Plan was underway. Mr. Matteson recommended that, given the proposed changes considered this far, the committee also consider changing some existing commercial zoning along Upward Road to another zoning classification be it residential, office institutional, or small scale commercial. Mr. Matteson felt different zoning in the area, given the existing school and churches, might be more appropriate for residential development. The members of the committee generally agreed that there may be alternative zoning applications in the area and wished to see potential alternatives prepared by staff. Finally, the committee wished to consider alternatives to residential zoning east of Howard Gap Road (located between Howard Gap Road and Upward Road) which included applying R1 zoning in the area. Mr. Thompson made a motion to apply the I zoning (between McMurray and Ballenger Roads) and R1 zoning (between South Orchard and Howard Gap Road) as indicated during the discussion, in the areas, as specified. Mr. Byers seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. Mr. Thompson adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Chairman 2