Mr. Grimes also went over the purpose of the original HBC plan. He stated that the challenge is to take the HBC plan of 10 years ago and try to make sure that it fits with where Hickory is today. Hickory is a different place than it was 10 years ago, at least economically. The overall plan's overriding Principle (goal) was to provide for a walkable Hickory. The original plan called for commercial services and institutions to be within an easy walk of where they live. The land use plan was based upon a concentric ring theory (series of).
One of the things done earliest on in this process was to see if walkability a goal that the community still supports. In the first meetings it was determined that yes that is a concept worth executing. However, there may be conditions that keep us from achieving that in every possible case. The land use plan echoes that plan by trying to centralize the population intense and service commercial areas. Each pod represents a neighborhood center that is starting to take shape.
The problem is that existing land use development patterns are more in keeping with the zoning map. The zoning map has tended to create corridors. We need to help the centers thrive, while at the same time recognizing that we have a existing corridor development context. We need the corridors to succeed and they need to succeed in such a way that they help the centers to get to the way that we want them to be.
The commercial uses developing along both the centers and the corridors are essentially developing the same way. We need to find a way to diminish the competition between the corridors and the centers. We need to see a symbiotic relationship between the corridors and the centers. The Land Use strategy needs to be set up to help the center succeed.
The Advisory Committee has been utilizing the information from these workshops and trying to figure out how to deal with the conflict between Hickory by Choice and the Land Development Code. The Advisory Committee has gone through the exercise of deciding which centers and which commercial corridors have an opportunity to develop into the HBC ideal. They have looked at the commercial designations to find ways to characterize those and classify those so that we can take the next step forward. They have also explored zoning strategies to try to achieve this.
The first part of this process has dealt with policy, now we are going to start dealing with regulations. The advisory committee considered formed based zoning (here is a link to different types of zoning principles) to achieve mixed uses and walkability. That is a possible tool, but Mr. Grimes believes that some of these things can be achieved by utilizing the current structure of the zoning code with just a couple of modifications. There is an opportunity to maybe make this happen in the future.
This night we are looking at zoning strategies and focusing on proposed changes. Right now there are over a dozen planned developments. These are fairly arcane zoning districts, very specialized to suit individual development proposals. They make the zoning code difficult to administer and they don't make the developing environment easy.
There is some new legislation that will help address this. There are too many commercial districts and some of the designations needs to be combined. This is important when it comes to designations.
Planned Development zoning happens when someone has a great idea, but there isn't necessarily an answer for it in the existing codes. What the city has traditionally done is look at it as a zone change. This is a two-step process. the city council would adopt a zone change to planned development and then the planning commission would approve the specific development to fulfill the requirements of that zoning district. What will be looked at is a conditional zone change. The conditional process achieves basically the same thing, but it is much more consolidated.
The original zoning concept allows uses that are permitted by right. If the zoning changes in the traditional manner, then there are an entirely new set of land uses that are permitted underneath that zoning district. What the general use zone change does not require is that the person who requests this zone change must commit to what that zone change is going to be. This has led to zone changes that occur from a speculative standpoint, because they feel that their property will be worth more if it is zoned for a higher intensity use, even if they have no immediate plans to develop it at that time.
With the planned development zoning it is a two-step process, where you have the city council acting on a planned development zone designation, but then you have a planned development project attached to that property. So there is a special standard attached to that property and based on a development project. It reduces the speculation issue, because the person who is requesting the zone change already has an idea of what they are going to do with the land. What you will see with the approval is a master plan attached to iit and it allows the city council to attach specific conditions to that approval. This will keep whatever is happening on a particular site from negatively effecting the properties around it.
What happens with conditional zoning is the same as planned development zoning, except instead of the developer going through two processes, it is consolidated into one. It is legislative and it is subjected to a hearing before the planning board and the city council. It helps on both sides. The planning commission's role will be reduced to more of an advisory role in this process. The community and developers benefit because they only have to go through one process of public hearings.
Conditional zoning will make it easier for the city to mix uses in the centers. Mr. Grimes envisions conditional zoning happening in and around the centers where people are interested in doing something a little more flexible (Narrower streets, integrating a residential component into a commercial building, etc.). It will be applied to areas where we want to mix uses and make areas a little more compact and interesting.
The next subject Mr. Grimes addressed was the City Center Pedestrian Overlay District in the city's center. This District extends pretty far to the west and east of downtown. The intention was to create an environment for people to walk and be out and about. This district type tries to apply standards to make this area an interesting place. Mr. Grimes feels that this designated area is too large. What happens is that there are a lot of warehouse buildings in this space. They have interesting architecture, but they are difficult to retrofit to this district's glazing standard. This district tends to paint Downtown with a single brush.
Some of these areas are successful, while others aren't and won't be unless we look towards wiping out that building stock and replacing it with something else. That is not what is happening Downtown. These buildings can be used for something, but it is just not happening. It is rare for these districts to encompass over 6 or 7 blocks, yet we have the one here extending out to nearly a 1/2 a square-mile. It needs to be pulled in to around a 1/4 of a square-mile to make it can really activate a city street life scene.
The question was asked about Lenoir-Rhyne's pedestrian activity and why that would be excluded? Mr. Grimes stated that a lot of L-R is already excluded from the pedestrian overlay. If you take a look at L-R intersection (where Main avenue meets Highland avenue and L-R Boulevard near the new overpass), then you see the current eastern most component of this pedestrian overlay. What this district tells us to do is make sure that everything that develops has that downtown type of feel to it and and it is not realistic.
The question was then asked if it has been considered that many of the buildings are functionally obsolete and need to be demolished? Mr. Grimes answered that that has been taken into consideration. What they are looking at when it comes to the pedestrian district is that there might be other choices. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to mean that it is a pedestrian unfriendly environment. The comment was made that if you run it to the edge of the SALT block, then you exclude the SALT block. Mr. Grimes said that the proposal is a draft and this will be talked about.
Mr. Grimes says it is implemented now by mandating a building type. There are a lot of ways that this can be achieved without mandating a building type. If we want pedestrians to be able to more easily and more safely access the core, then we can do it in other ways than by mandating that everything have the same type of storefront. Mr. Grimes stated L-R's pedestrian campus style does need to also be compatible with being able to walk the city's center for access to activity's entertainment. To do this we must deal with the streetscape on Hwy 127 and some of the other areas that feed into the center city.
We have to understand that there is a lot of investment in these corridors. By mandating massive changes in the zoning structure, we are going to be impacting people's property rights and impact the level of investment there. We are trying to strike a balance, so that we can still accommodate what has been going on as far as investing in the corridors, while at the same time helping the centers to activate.
The question was asked, How did the original HBC treat these corridors? The corridors were not addressed by the original HBC. That is one of the major reasons why this update is being undertaken right now. The corridors are a very powerful economic and notable land use aspect component of the community.
The question was asked, wasn't the original HBC designed to eliminate strip mall development (inferred to be corridor development) and ensure the development of the node development concept. If we are going to protect the corridor development, aren't we going to institutionalize strip mall development? Mr. Grimes said that it is more than strip mall development. It is repetitive strip mall development. There is an opportunity in the corridors for vacant nuildings to go unused. Tenants find a newer building, a better building, that is not obsolete along the same corridor without having to go into a center. One of the things that they are trying to do is find a way not to institutionalize the permanence of that type of disposability along the corridors.
I asked why this development along the corridors has happened this way and why developments aren't going into the city centers? Mr. Grimes answered: When you look at real estate development patterns. the automobile has a huge impact on that development, whether it is the overall spread of residential land or it is the evolution of land along the corridors from one time residential or agricultural use to industrial or commercial. The original HBC was intended to promote walkability. If we get into the habit of walking by centralizing services as much as possible, then we may still be using the corridors to commute to where we work, but some of our daily business will be able to be done on foot or by a bicycle.
This new plan is meant to hedge that. The corridor and land development patterns, that go along with that high traffic volume, will still persist to a certain extent. There will be a strong economic push to commercially develop that land. Not many people really want to live along these high intensity corridors. But, they are trying to find ways to activate the centers so that they provide an attractive alternative. That way people will be using those corridors less frequently for their daily needs.
I asked if this doesn't come down to an economics issue? Yes, it is an economics issue. It is also a regulatory issue. In Spokane, when gas prices went to $4.50/gallon then they saw a massive decrease in automobile driving and a huge increase in transit ridership. He believes that we might not be that far from a tipping point where these centers and a more urban lifestyle becoming more attractive for a number of reasons. It was also added that the original HBC wasn't only about pedestrian travel. It was about shortening car trips.
An interjection was made about the overpass development at L-R. The sidewalks are a little larger than standard. How do we get double sidewalks when the State DOT says that we can't have them because this is their project and this is what they are doing? Brian Frazier answered that this comes down to a private property issues in terms of right-of-way. The big issue is money. Who is going to pay for it? For years it has been talked about what other communities have done with medians. They don't have concrete. They have grass and plants in their medians. It isn't that the State won't let you do it. They will, but the city has to pay for it and that has been a big problem. It is a money issue. The money to put them in and the money to maintain them.
The gentleman asked, we are pushing walkability aren't we. Mr. Grimes stated yes, but we must think about walkability as an opportunity to travel safely from one place to another, which is basically how we deal with that right-of-way. The gentleman, who asked the question, further stated that if we have narrow sidewalks then he isn't going to use the sidewalks, because then there are too many people on the sidewalk. Mr. Grimes said that is important, but we must manage the right-of-way in such a way that we can populate those areas. This would help to demonstrate and display an increase in demand that would show the State that we do need to incorporate more sidewalks in these areas.
Onto the Workshop, we had color coded maps on each table that displayed the characteristics and uses of the corridors. Studio cascade will have the sourcebook that we utilized up in the next few days.
Basically the Development Type codes were broken down into six forms:
1) Urban center - Red : Central business Districts, places of commerce, financial services, and government centers. Features include multi-story buildings, professional offices, groundfloor storefronts, public transit, parking structures, retail, entertainment, and dining. Examples Cited - Union square, First Baptist Church, City Hall.
2) Urban corridor - Orange : Place of transition. Lots of traffic and benefit from being close to the urban center. Higher density residential that can be built right to the street edge. Professional offices and smaller scale storefronts contribute to and benefit from foot traffic on the sidewalks. Streetscape is alive and active. Examples Cited - The SALT Block, First Presbyterian church, Panera Bread and that complex.
3) Neighborhood Mixed-Use - Yellow: permits a mix of retail and service establishments such as groceries, pharmacies, lundry/dry cleaners, restaurants, and higher intensity residential uses, such as apartments and townhouses. Examples Cited - Corinth, Viewmont Square
4) Revitalization - Green: Focus on converting obsolete buildings into more modern uses, such as professional offices, storefront retail, or residential flats. There may be a necessary amount of cleanup before the areas can be made available to new tenants. Examples Cited - The water department, Piedmont Wagon, Zagaroli Construction, Huffman Hosiery, The Charlotte Observer building
5) Suburban Corridor - Purple: Caters to automobile drivers. Parking lots front the streets to provide convenient access to retail, professional offices, and dining establishments. These businesses often accommodate drive-thru service. Examples Cited - Corinth, Pleasers, The old Superior cable building,
6) Suburban center - Blue: Feature a grocery store or other anchor tenant, with other retail storefronts attached to it. Many include restaurants located on pads near the street with large parking access to accommodate the maximum expected number of customers serving the entire project. Lowe's Home Improvement on Hwy 127, Lowe's Grocery on 29th ave NE, Carolina Orthopedic, Viewmont Pharmacy, Hickory High School
We were split into groups to see to look at the provided map. On the map, Studio Cascade colored the areas that they felt constituted the above Development Types and Zones. We were to see whether our group agreed with their placement of the particular Development Types and Zones and give our thoughts about how we would coordinate them.
In our table's outside of the box discussion, the people at the table believed that the corridor issue is an issue of car travel and following the path of least resistance. I also believe this to a degree, but personally I believe that it is a combination issue that is centered around economics. The developers have found they have all of this traffic volume along the corridors and the price of the property along a corridor is cheaper than it will be in a concentric layer that will have to deal with issues of parking, mobility, and escalating real estate values in that core.
You see these cores will be owned by individuals who have a monopolistic hold on those areas. You will pay their price or you won't do business. Under the current zoning requirements, a developer has more options. These core areas will tend to limit those options if not done right. That is a key reason, in my opinion, that this core concept has not worked. Developers need options and people desire more choices when utilizing services.
Patrick Berry says that owners have no incentive and are not driven to make properties more of what they need to be. I agree with that. We do need to encourage owners to create excellent properties.
Harry Hipps says the problem he sees is that if it is people's private property and they want to upgrade from residential to commercial, it can be perceived as more valuable. With this plan what if it is determined that the city is going move you from commercial to residential. Are they going to use Imminent Domain and enforce this? I asked about the issue of a grocery store being located in a certain core. What if I am a resident and I like Harris-Teeter, but there is only a Food Lion in my core. I'm going to drive to Harris-Teeter. Or what if Harris-Teeter is already in my core, but Whole Foods wants to put a store there also. Is the city going to tell Whole Foods that they are late to the party and can't locate there? I just hope that common sense flexibility will be built into this process.
The exercise: What this exercise seems to be is that we are utilizing this map to try and transition to what we want to see in the next 20 years. It was agreed amongst our group that Union Square is an Urban Center. We also looked at the blocks on the map that are south of the tracks that are deemed Revitalization and agreed unanimously that they should be labeled and developed as an Urban Center, which would consolidate the area of that is Union Square into one solid area. This area include the post office, the Hickory Station, Market on Main, the Transit System station, The Jackson Group, and all of the properties in this area over to at least 2nd ave SE and SW. Patrick said that the concept of ending one way streets, that has been applied to parts of downtown, should be incorporated into this south Hickory. that would have a direct impact on this area.
The next area that we looked at was the Old Lenoir road area section. We agree that it is a revitalization area. I spoke to the need to move away from heavy industrial truck and freight traffic in this area. The businesses are going out of business on Old-70. Truck and freight access should be using Hwy 321 to the greatest extent possible. This area needs to move towards residential, because of the nice neighborhoods that are located in close proximity to the area. Look at the residential areas near Holy Trinity church and the nice houses along 2nd and 3rd ave NW. Some of the old warehouse buildings along Old-70 could be used as incubators for start-up businesses. The city could foster this with revitalization tax breaks for developers to move in this direction and tax breaks should also be afforded to those incubator businesses. Think of the possibilities along that rail line as we head to the future.
The next area that we looked at was Hwy 321 from the Hwy 70 intersection to the the Corning building. This area was listed as a revitalization area and we staunchly disagreed with this premise. This area has a ton of viable businesses located on or around it. We labeled this area as a Suburban Corridor. Sure there are parts of the area that could be spruced up, but couldn't we say that about some property in every area of Hickory?
Next, Hwy 70 from Hwy 127 to hwy 321 was listed as a revitalization area. We agreed with that. We had fun with it, trying to determine if Napalming this area would be fair or simply plowsharing it back into agricultural farmland. In all seriousness, this area along with Mainstreet, 1st and 2nd ave SW and SE need to be the two biggest priorities in this city. The Hound has filmed these areas and those videos are available on Youtube. Please go take a look at these videos and tell me that these are not top 5 issues in this city's governance.
Looking down Hwy 127n headed towards Viewmont, we established that part of this area needs to be incorporated into an Urban Center. The character of 127 changes from block to block. Back towards downtown it is definitely more urban. Up towards Harris-Teeter (North Pointe Shopping Center) it is a lot more of a corridor. Right now the area at the SALT block is a transitional Urban Corridor, but at a point in time in the future it really does need to meld into downtown. We put a red and orange circle in those areas. The area across the street from L-R is definitely a revitalization area from WHKY all the way up Highland Avenue where the old mills were.
Further up Hwy 127, we agreed that it is definitely an Urban Corridor area. Our group would prefer that Lowe's Home Improvement not be a considered Mixed-Use. Basically it should be listed as a Suburban Center along with the new Lowe's Grocery that is coming soon. As much as some political factions hate it, this area is naturally becoming what HBC initially intended with the Core concept. It just hasn't happened the way some decision makers wanted it to happen.
Moving up Hwy 127, we also agreed that the area around the old Someplace Else and Clark Tire should be Neighborhood Mixed-Use and we would like to see more of this type of development occurring along this corridor all the way up 127. We also agreed with the map that North Pointe Shopping Center is definitely a Suburban Core. We don't know about the proposed bridge across Huffman Cove into Caldwell County, but we truly do believe that 29th is going to get 4 laned to McDonald Parkway during stages of this plans implementation. So that core at Harris-Teeter is going to be vital.
And this was as far as we got. Mr. Grimes asked a few of the groups to share. The first group that presented for the most part agreed, but they wanted part of 127n changed to purple. They believe that some of the buildings and architecture need to be made sense of. Around Harris-Teeter they want to see more mixed use. They mentioned public plazas, open spaces, public art, a park, and bike paths. The area north of harris-Teeter just dies and people don't feel like coming down here (closer to town). There needs to be more activity in this part of the town. (The Hound suggests that these people look at the proposed Cloninger Mill Park. I think that is what they are looking for). This group also talked about the entrances into the city and how the people look at Hickory when they get their first view, it is confusing and not aesthetically pleasing. It needs to be worked on.
The second group said that they do agree with everything the first group said. They first discussed Downtown and stated that it should not end at the Railroad tracks. Until you go a couple of blocks across the tracks it will never grow, it will never energize itself. They would like to see some more of that Urban Core extend there. They identified alot of areas of revitalization, they believe the entry ways into Hickory are largely unattractive. 4th street SW has done a wonderful job of redefining itself, but the other areas need something. Hwy 127 needs some traffic calming and a reduction of driveways directly onto the street. They agree with the first group about North Viewmont. They want to see the intersection of McDonald Parkway and Spring's Road and the old St Stephen's property development done properly. They deserve as much consideration as anyone else in the area. Hwy 70 SW needs to be revitalized. It is a suburban corridor. It has been in decline for way too long. They need to get rid of the crack motels that are just a blight to the area. they are a blight to the entrance of Hickory and they are a barrier to development that may be looking to upgrade that area.
Our group made the next presentation. Patrick talked about our issues of Downtown and creating walkability. We agreed with the other groups about the Urban Center concept for the south side of the tracks. Patrick interjected that we don't build things downtown that would make them want to live downtown. He stated that he would like to see a grocery store would be great in Zagaroli's revitalization area near downtown. A walking area to L-R would also be nice. He spoke about our issues on 127. Urban corridor to mixed use to suburban core and pulling residential all the way up to Hwy 127. He also talked about our concept of Old Lenoir road. Comic Relief was to turn the Catawba Mall area into Farmland.
The fourth group started out by saying the Kool-Park - Spring's Road area needs to be an Suburban Center. This was where the big battle was, where the residents didn't want WalMart. These residential sensitivities can't be ignored. the old St. Stephens property needs to be turned into a Suburban Center. The Highland avenue one way streets should be made two way. The area is a revitalization area that should be intended for mixed-use. This can develop out of and should be associated with L-R along the Railroad. The Tate - LR Boulevard intersection will be a beautiful entrance into the city. It should be mixed use in the future. With town houses and pedestrian areas. They also believe the area south of the tracks need to be incorporated into the urban center. They had mixed opinions about what should be done on Hwy 127 in Viewmont. The 4th street corridor isn't addressed on this map. They believe great strides have been made in this area.
The fifth group talked about how Hickory's streets are haphazardly developed. They also stated that some of Hickory's newer buildings don't match the historical character of the area. they would also like to see more reusing of the old warehouse structures in the area.
The last group stated that tghey had a few different thoughts. What they did was stated to be a little more along the technical definitions. The southern end of L-R boulevard isn't revitalization. they changed it to Suburban Corridor, south of Texas Roadhouse. north of there they agree that it is revitalization, but it should extend across up highland avenue. They feel that tate boulevard should be addressed. At the end of Old Lenoir Road, they believe that it should be changed from Suburban Core to Suburban Corridor, because there is a lot of traffic that flows through there, that goes to Granite Falls. Hwy 127n they changed to Urban Corridor all the way up.
Mr. Grimes stated that they would be using these maps to create a draft building map to reflect some of these things and what they have learned through the process. January's workshop will discuss residential and industrial designations.
The issue of one way streets was brought up and how they make it difficult for newcomers to get around and figure out the traffic patterns in the city. Mr. Grimes says that this is definitely an influence to the way that private property develops. This comprehensive planning perspective looks at land use, looks at transportation, looks at housing, looks at economic development, looks at the environment and a number of characteristics and hopefully it will knit together into as policy environment that makes a lot sense.
When they look at individual zoning classifications, rules, and standards; they are trying to marry those to an overarching policy environment that helps to advance the whole cause.
The Hound says whew, lot of info there. I was surprisingly pleased to hear the thoughts of the people at this meeting. There were a lot of outside of the box suggestions in my opinion that I truly believe can carry this city forward. My table thought that we were going to be the only table with double-dots, but most of the tables ended up going in that direction. Also, people were looking at this issue in the context of what we want to see in 2030, instead of thinking about what the zoning should be now.
Yes, who knows where this area, State, or Country will be next year, much less 20 years from now; but it is a lot better to adapt with a plan than to just wing it. This process in the end will be a compromise and as long as we think about this as a legacy issue, then we will be alright. If we look at this as an issue of personal interests or aggrandizement, then it will surely fail.
I truly believe that we need to look at the transportation issue when it comes to all of this. We can't get stuck with only looking from a perspective of cars and walking. As I have stated before, The bottom line of this plan should be based upon transportation or moving around this city. That will go a long way towards increasing the quality of life, especially when we are still so vulnerable to fuel prices. That opens up the choices, that builds connections, and that leads us to what will be a necessity in the future. If this is truly going to be a comprehensive plan, then it must include transportation.
We have to come to the realization that this process will not be perfect. Look at the development of the corridors, when this Core concept was the desire. Look at the unintended consequences that were enabled. We have to look to the future and balance it with where we are today. I don't really think that the original HBC put enough emphasis on how we get to the Core concept. It was just "here is the concept" and there was no plan or route to get there. And a lot of the attitude has been, I don't care how you make it happen, just make it happen. That type of dictatorial process never works in the long run. If we want this thing to work, then we must get buy-in from the public at-large.
Hickory By Choice 2030 Workshop: 3rd Meeting - (Unable to attend this meeting)
Hickory By Choice 2030 Workshop: 2nd Meeting
Why the original Hickory By Choice doesn't work
Hickory By Choice 2030 Workshop: 1st Meeting
Studio Cascade awarded contract at November 4, 2008 City Council meeting
No comments:
Post a Comment