community open house #1 · approximately 200 people attended the open house, with 110 signing in at...

DRAFTOctober 2019

Prepared for the City of Spartanburg

COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE #1SUMMARY

Intentionally Left Blank

2 | City of Spartanburg

Table of Contents

Attendees.........................................................................................................................................................4

Most & Least ....................................................................................................................................................5

Vision................................................................................................................................................................6

Transportation..................................................................................................................................................7

Land Use and Zoning .......................................................................................................................................8

Public Investment.............................................................................................................................................10

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................13

Highland Neighborhood Transformation Plan - First Open House Summary | 3

AttendeesApproximately 200 people attended the Open House, with 110 signing in at the front desk. The sign in asked attendees for their contact information as well as two additional questions.

The first asked attendees how they learned about the meeting, to get an understand of what outreach methods are most successful to bring people to the meetings. A variety of outreach methods were utilized, with the neighborhood association and word of mouth leading in majority.

The second questions asked attendees for their address. Figure 2 shows that 45% percentage of attendees were residents from the Highland neighborhood, each living within a specific area of the community. The remaining attendees were residents of the City of Spartanburg (18%), followed by County residents. The percentage of attendees that mentioned working in the community was 45%.

The first public meeting for the Highland Neighborhood Transformation Plan was held as an open house on Tuesday August 13th, 2019 at Macedonia Baptist Church. Feedback was elicited on six major topics that would inform the creation of recommendations in subsequent work on the plan.

The meeting was held between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM in a flexible format that allowed participants to give input on different stations related to the topics above. A total of eleven exercises were split among the six stations. Members from the planning team, and the City of Spartanburg facilitated the station discussions and documented comments received.

Most & Least+/-Vision

Community Meeting #1

History

Transportation

Land Use and Zoning

Public Investment

Neighborhood Association and Word of Mouth led in Outreach Methods Figure 1: Outreach Methods Summary

42% of Attendees were ResidentsFigure 2: Attendee Address Summary

13%

23%

23%

9%

5%

13%

15%

Mail

Word of Mouth

Neighborhood Association

Facebook

Flyers

Church

Other

Area 1 (Southeast)

18%

Area 2 (Southwest)

18%

Area 3 (North)4%

Spartanburg City18%

Spartanburg County

33%

Other 9%

(Southwest)

(Southeast)


+/- Most & Least The most/least exercise asked attendees to describe what they like most and least about the Highland neighborhood. The table below summarizes the findings for the exercise.

What you like MOST What you like LEAST Friendly Norris Ridge Bethlehem Center Old Houses Community Environment Crime+ Drugs Homeowners Trash in streets,park, and vacant lotsProximity to downtown area Not safe environment for growth Efforts to revitalize the Highland community Not enough lighting People getting along Transient residents Stewart Park Mindset that change is not possible Wisdom of long term residents Decreased community involvement and interest from residentsPossibilities Lack of maintenance of vacant properties Community Identity Decreased sense of pridePride Lack of investment from cityCommunity Engagement Lack of business and neighborhood servicesFront Porches Lack of community ownershipMacedonia Baptist Church

Major TakeawaysInput received at this station will be used to ensure that the plan recommendations help reinforce what stakeholders like most about their community as well as address what they like least about the neighborhood.


In Exercise 2 participants were provided with a board of example vision statements. Thirty-six cards were displayed on a large format board with numbers. Papers and stickers were provided with associate tiered place mats, where numbered stickers were placed according to the importance to the participant. The top 10 phrases selected are shown below.

Major TakeawaysBoth exercise at station 1, allowed for residents to depict what they want to Highland Neighborhood of the future to be. These results will be used to develop a vision statement and goals for the Highland Neighborhood Transformation Plan that will guide the creation of future recommendations for the community.

VisionThe vision station was split into two distinct exercises. Exercise 1 asked attendees to make a wish for their community. Below these aspirations are summarized into four general categories. Recreation

• Recreation Center • Stewart Park Restrooms and Redevelopment• Sports Fields (football, baseball, and indoor basketball)• Swimming Pool

Goods and Services • Grocery Store • Retail Stores • Restaurant (Chik-fil-a)

Business Development• Better Businesses including Black Owned • Job Training

Community Development • Safety • Unity• Housing • Walking Trails and Bike Paths • Police Protection + Community Relations• Mentoring (Big Brother + Big Sister Program)

Make A Wish for your NeighborhoodFigure 3: Attendee Comment Summary Word Cloud

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10


Transportation The transportation station provided attendees with the opportunity to give input in areas of concern within their community in Exercise 1, and where and what type of improvements they would want to see in Exercise 2.

Safety Concerns Exercise 1 asked participants to locate intersections and areas within the Highland Neighborhood transportation systems where they had specific safety concerns. Four areas stood out as shown in Figure 4 and outlined below. The number of instances the safety concern was labeled is shown in parenthesis.

1. Daniel Morgan Avenue and Highland Avenue Intersection ₀ Speeding (9) ₀ Dangerous Pedestrian Crossing (8)

2. Henry Street and Forest Street Intersection ₀ Speeding (1) ₀ Dangerous Intersection (3)

3. Daniel Morgan Avenue and John B. White Sr. Boulevard Intersection

₀ Dangerous Pedestrian Crossing (2)4. John B. White Sr. Boulevard and Imperial Street Intersection

₀ Speeding (2) ₀ Dangerous Pedestrian Crossing (1) ₀ Blind spot (1)

Street Improvements Exercise 2 asked participants what types of improvements they would want to see in the neighborhood's major corridors. Figure 5 shows the results below. The first number is requested vehicular improvements and the second number is requested bike/pedestrian improvements in the specific corridor. Findings include:

• Highland Avenue had the highest request for vehicular safety improvements, followed by Forest Street • Bike and pedestrian safety is of concern in John B. White Sr. Boulevard and Daniel Morgan Avenue • Landscaping was more of a priority for pedestrians and bicycle in most corridors • Improvements for heightened convenience (easy access, parking, and crossing) is a priority for vehicles on Henry Street

Major TakeawaysThe majority of the transportation concerns are concentrated along the northern portion of the neighborhoods where there is more vehicular traffic observed due to a change in land uses. Many of the improvements requested focused on vehicular safety improvements and improving the corridors for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Four Problem AreasFigure 4: Transportation Concerns

6. DANIEL MORGAN AVE

1. JOHN B WHITE SR BLVD

2. H

IGH

LAN

D A

VE

4. MAIN ST

3. FOREST ST

1. JOHN B WHITE SR BLVD

SAFETY

CONVENIENCE

LANDSCAPE

2.HIGHLAND AVE

3. FOREST ST 4. MAIN ST 5. HENRY ST 6. DANIEL MORGAN AVE

0 / 9 1 / 2

0 / 5 1 / 4

0 / 3 1 / 1

6 / 3 2 / 9

2 / 1 4 / 5

2 / 2 1 / 1

13 / 1 12 / 2

3 / 2 2 / 2

2 / 2 4 / 1

Vehicular Transportation Improvements a PriorityFigure 5: Summary of Improvements

= Car Improvement# # Pedestrian/Biking

Improvement=


Land Use and ZoningThe Land Use and Zoning station had two distinct activities designed to gain an understanding from participants on their specific preferences on density and retail typologies.

Density Participants were provided with a board that split the study area into nine different subareas. The exercise asked them to place one of the four density options in each area of the community based on their preference from lower density to higher density as shown in Figure 6. The results of the input are shown in Figure 7.

• There is a strong desire to keep Subareas 6 and 8 as low density residential (Option A) which is characterized by detached structures consisting of single family, duplexes or triplexes not exceeding two stories. This areas have historically houses single family structures and many residents have expresses a desire to strength this core residential character.

• Participants preferred higher densities for Subareas 2, 3, 7, and 9, which all form the outer perimter of the study area. All of these subareas either have existing multifamily or consist primarily of commercial or undeveloped property.

• Density preferences for Subareas 5, 4, and 1 were more mixed and moderate, with about 45% of particpants preferring Option A and more than half of particpants prferring more dense options, possibly indicating a preference for "missing middle" residential housing.

Figure 6: Density Options

DANIEL MORGAN

DAN

IEL

MO

RGA

N

BEA

CO

N

NORRIS

PRINC

E HA

LL

HIG

HLA

ND

FORREST

BUNKER

MAIN

HENRY

JOHN B

WHIT

E SEN

IOR

31 2

46

7 8

9

5

A

What is the Preferred Density? Figure 7: Density Results Chart

Prefer Less Density Prefer More Density

2219

12 14 1411 12

5 7

66

99 9

8 5

87

33

2 5 7

4 6 11

5

2 3 3 2

9 95

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Subarea 6 Subarea 8 Subarea 5 Subarea 4 Subarea 1 Subarea 9 Subarea 3 Subarea 2 Subarea 7

Total A Total B Total C Total D

1

5

6

7

8

9

4

23

STATION 4: LAND USEEXERCISE 1: DENSITY - Using the Exercise 2 board as a guide, match your desired density (Density Scoring Key) to each area (Location Key) by writing the corresponding Density letter.

Location KeyPlace your density scores below!

A B C DDensity Scoring Key

DANIEL MORGAN

DAN

IEL

MO

RGA

N

BEA

CO

N

NORRIS

FORREST

MAIN

JOHN B

WHIT

E SEN

IOR

Density A Density B

1

5

6

7

8

9

4

23

STATION 4: LAND USEEXERCISE 1: DENSITY - Using the Exercise 2 board as a guide, match your desired density (Density Scoring Key) to each area (Location Key) by writing the corresponding Density letter.

Location KeyPlace your density scores below!

A B C DDensity Scoring Key

DANIEL MORGAN

DAN

IEL

MO

RGA

N

BEA

CO

N

NORRIS

FORREST

MAIN

JOHN B

WHIT

E SEN

IOR

Density C Density D

N

22 1912 14 14

11 125 7

66

9 9 9

8 5

8 7

33 2 5 7

4 6 115

2 3 3 2

9 95

11

0%10%

20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Subarea 6 Subarea 8 Subarea 5 Subarea 4 Subarea 1 Subarea 9 Subarea 3 Subarea 2 Subarea 7

Total A Total B Total C Total D


RetailThis exercise asked participants to rank their preference on specific categories of retail land use. Participants were allowed to chose six categories from the ten and rank these six categories by priority preference. Points were then allocated to each ranking. For example, a category with one 1st priority vote would have 10 points in total. The scores for each ranking are shown below:

Scored results from this exercise are shown in Figure 8.• Grocery stores was the most preferred type of retail by a large margin, receiving 67%

of the first priority votes. • Health facility received the second highest number of 1st priority votes, accounting

for 14% of the first priority votes. • Health facility and Neighborhood Services placed second and third, respectively, with Pharmacy, Bank and Sit-Down

Restaurant coming in 4th, 5th and 6th place in terms of total points. • A Convenience Store/ Gas Station received, by far, the least amount of votes.

Major Takeaways• Although there is a strong preference for the neighborhood's density to remain low density residential, there were specific

areas within the community that were identified for higher density redevelopment including the areas close to Downtown Spartanburg and large vacant parcels to the west.

• There is a strong preference for a grocery store in terms of retail land uses, followed by health facility, pharmacy, and neighborhood services.

• The least preferred retail uses are convenience stores, coffee shops, and boutique retail.

What is Your Most Preferred Retail? Figure 8: Retail Investment Voting Chart

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6

Preference Rank Points1st 102nd 73rd 54th 45th 36th 2


Public Investment The public investment topic sought input using two different exercises on major areas where tax dollars should be spent. The first exercise helped introduce participants to the topic through the available categories , and the second exercise sought more specific public investment ideas.

Public Investment Opportunities This exercise allowed participants to identify one specific issue or opportunity for public investment within the study area. Participants were then asked to identify the location of their issue or opportunity on the map. These issues and opportunities have been summarized below, and numbered with their locations provided on Figure 9.

Neighborhood Cleanup

1. Kudzu removal (3)2. Trash removal (2)

Housing

3. Redevelopment of existing apartments (6)4. Redevelopment of vacant property (2)5. Improve affordable options for families (1)

Transportation

6. Add speed bumps (2)7. Pedestrian bridge to connect Park Hills (1)8. Add or improve sidewalks (5)

Community Services

9. Renovation and upkeep of the Bethlehem Center (3)10. Install curb and gutter (1)11. Add a health facility (1)12. Creation of a community garden (2)

Economic Development

13. Increased and improve commercial offerings (5)14. Attract a grocery store (3)15. Attract a coffee shop (1)

Greenspace

16. Restrooms in the parks for children (1) 17. Add trails and picnic areas to Stewart Park (1) 18. Strong investment in public parks (1)19. Build a park similar to Cleveland Park (1)

Safety

20. Drug activity when businesses are closed (1)21. Police presence (2)22. The Barber Shop serves as a safe community space, and

potential employer (1)


Opportunities Cluster at Norris Ridge Apartments, Stewart Park, and Main Street Figure 9: Summary of Comments

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

4

5

6

7

8

8

8

8

8 10

9

11

12

15

16

17

18

20

19

3

21

21

12

12

13

13

13

13

13

19

11

22

22

14


Public Investment Preference This exercise asked participants to rank their preference for ten categories of public investment. Participants could choose six of the ten categories and rank these six by priority preference. Points were then allocated to rank. For example, a category with one 1st priority vote and one 2nd vote would have 17 points in total. These scores are shown in the following table.

• Housing and Safety received 65% of the first priority votes.• While K-12 received the third most "1st Priority" votes, it came in 6th place overall,

signaling that this investment option elicits a very strong response among those concerned with the issue, but that many participants did not feel as strongly.

Major Takeaways• There is a strong preference for public investment in improving the housing stock within the neighborhood. • Investment in economic development, that attracts new commercial uses was strongly supported. • Respondents want to see an investment in construction and improvement of sidewalks to make the neighborhood more

walkable, and to improve pedestrian connections to other neighborhoods. • Supporting neighborhood cleanup, such as kudzu and trash removal, is a priority for public investment.

What is Your Most Preferred Public Investment? Figure 10: Public Investment Preference Voting Chart

Preference Rank Points1st 102nd 73rd 54th 45th 36th 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6


Conclusion The findings from the community open house will help form the basis for the recommendations section of this study, where policy and implementation recommendations are outlined that directly affect existing residents. The input received on the vision and goals for the neighborhood will be used to draft a vision for the neighborhood that will then be used to guide the plans priorities. The feedback received during the most/ least, transportation, land use and zoning and public investment exercises help the consultant team determine key opportunities for action.

Community input is an essential component of neighborhood revitalization. Community input provides a ground-level view of the study area's conditions and frames the desires of Highland residents and stakeholders firmly into the planning process.


community open house #1 · approximately 200 people attended the open house, with 110 signing in at...

Documents