U-2106

MEMO
TO
DATE:
SUBJECT: G t
dt, C e 6f
'1?? rvIv s 1 /)? c?
d Old
From:
SfATf o.
North Carol i na "Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
s• V? Printed on Recycled Paper
pum
t '
•
Hendersonville, US 25 (Asheville Highway)
From NC 191 to Brookside Camp Road (SR 1528)
Henderson County
State Project #9.8141349
T. I. P. U-2106
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
xl;?Wzg i

L.rJ. wars, N. t., managarr -
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Hendersonville, US 25 (Asheville
From NC 191 to Brookside Camp Road
Henderson County
State Project #9.8141349
T. I. P. U-2106
Highway)
(SR 1528)
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
January, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
dk?? a • d` laA;b
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Engineer
'/ ?,,,/) '.0
Ric and Davis,
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
,es?????uaaNa?•I
ese?o%?H CAP,p1?6 •••......•. //1.
• SEAL
6944
,,,••'•7`?? a a a B?

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Project Status and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
2. Description of Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
3. Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . F-2
4. Comments Received on the State Environmental Assessment. . . . F-2
5. Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5
6. Revisions to the Recommended Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . F-6
7. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . F-6
APPENDIX
Written Comments Received on the State Environmental
Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FA-1 through FA-13
State Environmental Assessment
State Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by
The Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Project Status and Costs
The project schedule reflected in the 1992-1998 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.) is as follows:
From NC 191 North
to Brookside Camp Road (SR 1528)
2.5 miles
Right-of-Way
Construction
FY 1993
FY 1995
The T.I.P. shows a total funding of $8,520,000 for the Project
including 4,470,000 for right-of-way and $4,050,000 for construction. The
total estimated cost of the project is $9,080,000, including $5,130,000
for right-of-way and $3,950,000 for construction. Therefore, the
estimated project exceeds the T.I.P. funding by $560,000. The project is
to be constructed with all state funds.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
US 25 (Asheville Highway) in Hendersonville from the existing curb and
gutter section near NC 191 North to Brookside Camp Road (SR 1528). The
project lies entirely within Henderson County and is approximately 2.5
miles in length.
The proposed improvements, are those recommended in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) (Alternative 2), which consists of widening the existing
roadway to a five lane, 64-foot, face to face of curbs, curb and gutter
cross section. An 80-foot right-of-way width is recommended for the
proposed improvement. This is to be asymmetrical about the existing
center line. Additional easements will be required to contain
construction at various locations along the project. The proposed
improvement will also include upgrading existing signals, and the
installation of a new signal at the Plaza North Shopping Center drive way.
F-2
3. Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved and circulated in June 1991
to the following federal, state, and local agencies:
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
U. S. Corps of Engineers
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Town of Hendersonville
Henderson County Board of Education
The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the public.
4. Comments Received on the State Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from
several agencies. Copies of the letters received are included in the
Appendix. The following is a summary of the comments which required
responses:
(a) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Comment - "While we note that this project is to be state funded, the
potential for federal permits may require further consultation and
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act."
Response - In reference to a memorandum dated July 10, 1989 from the
State Historic Preservation Officer a review of this project was
conducted and no properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project
were found. In accordance with this review, Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800, no further consultation or
compliance is necessary. Also prior to that, a memorandum dated June
8, 1989, stated the results of the Department of Transportation
architectural historian's survey of the project area were reviewed
and a concurrence that no National Register listed structures are
located within the area of potential effect. Therefore no further
compliance with G. S. 121-12(a) is required.
(b) Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Comment - "This project will impact 9 geodetic survey markers. N. C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P. 0.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N. C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N. C. General
Statute 102-4."
F-3
Response - The project has been coordinated with the N. C. Geodetic
Survey and its office will be contacted prior to construction of the
project.
Comment - "If any portion of the project is located within a High
Quality Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of
Environmental Management, increased design standards for sediment and
erosion control will apply."
Response - The NCDOT will prepare the erosion and sedimentation
control plans pursuant to the N. C. Administrative Code, Title 15 A,
Chapter 4B Section .0024 if any portion of the project is located
within a High Quality Water Zone (HQW).
Comment - "The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for
this project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission."
Response - An erosion and Sedimentation
this project will be prepared by NCDOT
program delegation to the Division of
Sedimentation Control Commission.
control plan required for
under the erosion control
Highways from the N. C.
(c) Land-Of-Sky Regional Council
Comment - "Bicycle lanes or wide outside lanes & bicycle safe
drainage grates should be considered to tie in to the proposed
Buncombe Co. system."
Response - The addition of bicycle lanes was investigated in the
planning process and no indications that unusual levels of bicycling
occurred on this roadway. Since, this section of US 25 was not a
part of our Bicycling Highway system and the bicycle travel will
occur as part of the overall traffic mix, it is determined that no
special accommodations for bicycles are needed. In addition, due to
the urban type nature of the proposed improvement, Narrow Slot Grates
will be used along the project.
(d) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment - "Trees and Shrubs along the tributary should be preserved
as much as possible to provide shade to the stream and a travel
corridor for wildlife.
Response - The NCDOT is aware of the need for this travel corridor
and the Roadway Design Unit will design the project utilizing the
existing practice of maintaining adequate buffer zones between the
stream and proposed slope stake lines to preserve as much vegetation
as possible.
Comment - The extension of concrete box culverts should be
accomplished without blocking fish movement. Culverts should be
placed 12 inches below the natural stream channel.
F-4
Response - The invert elevations of the existing culverts will
generally control the elevations for the proposed culvert extensions.
The determination if the flow line can and should be lowered 12
inches below stream bed elevations can not be made until field
surveys and final design detailing have been conducted. The request
for constructing the culverts below stream bed elevations will be
taken under advisement during the design process.
Comment - "A low flow notch or channel should be incorporated into
one cell of the double concrete box culvert in Britton Creek.
Deflectors should direct flow into the cell so that most of the water
enters this cell during low flow periods."
Response - To achieve this proposal would require replacing or
supplementing the existing culvert with a new culvert. Based on
potential structural and maintenance problems, a low flow notch can
not be reasonably added through the existing 2 @ 12' x 6' culvert.
Considering that this highway is located in an urban environment and
that Britton Creek at this crossing is not classified as a gamefish
habitat, it is not deemed cost effective at this time to incorporate
this proposal into the highway project. However, this site will be
further evaluated during the final design to determine if some other
alternative to providing a lower flow channel is justified and
practicable.
Comment - "Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil is disturbed and maintained until project completion."
Response - An erosion and sedimentation control plan required for
this project will be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission. Erosion
and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices shall be
designed and constructed to prevent silt contamination of streams and
areas located on or adjacent to the project.
Comment - "Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
including spoil piles, as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established within
15 days of project completion to provide long term erosion control."
Response - Temporary ground cover shall be placed on bare surfaces as
specified in Section 881 "Temporary Seeding" and Section 889
"Temporary Mulching" of the N. C. Department of Transportation's
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures Manual.
Permanent vegetation shall be established pursuant to Section 880
"Seeding and Mulching" of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures Manual

F-5
5. Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment a public
hearing was held on September 17, 1991 at the Balfour Elementary School.
Approximately 50 citizens attended the hearing, and 7 made comments for
the record. The majority of persons who offered comments on the proposed
improvements supported the project. Principal topics of concern included
bike lanes, improvements to intersections, right-of-way, site distances,
and the proposed Clear Creek Connector (U-2425). All comments and
questions were satisfactorily addressed at the hearing or are addressed
below.
(a) Intersection Improvements - The NC 191 intersection and the
realignment of Stoney Mt. Road were further investigated, and it
was determined that improvements to the NC 191 intersection
should be considered under project (U-2425). The realignment of
Stoney Mt. Road is not recommended due to the proximity damages
that would occur due to the grade changes in the area.
(b) Sight Distances - Sight distances and vertical grades at the
Berkley Drive intersection and the Balfour Elementary School
will be investigated and designed to provide the best possible
sight distances for all vehicles.
(c) Bike Lanes - As noted above under Item 4(C), the addition of
bike lanes was investigated, and it was determined that no
special accommodations were needed.
(d) Preservation and the Addition of Trees - Planning studies have
determined the the existing two lane facility should be widened
to a five lane curb and gutter facility. There are no plans for
a median in which trees could be planted. Existing trees
outside the slopes of the project should not be disturbed during
construction. However, as stated in the Environmental Assessment
(Pg. 5) $60,000 has been included in the construction cost
estimate in accordance with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Highway Landscape Planting Policy for the
proposed project. The possibility of including the planting of
trees along the right-of-way will be developed as part of the
landscape plans.
(e) Written Comments from Lew Steinbach, President of the
Opportunity House were received. A summary of the comments
which required responses is stated below.
Comment - "We are sympathetic to the need to widen US 25, but we
do have some serious concerns about the D.O.T. plan which we
want to bring to your attention.
1. The entire widening from the present 22' to 80' is
shown as being taken from our property.
2. Our estimate is that on this basis we will lose 40 to
45 parking spaces, or 30-34% of our available parking.
F-6
3. Our lot is presently full 40% of our regular hours.
Within a year this will be 75%.
4. The reduced parking availability will trigger extra
traffic movement as the overflow searches for parking
with the attendant risk of pedestrian traffic crossing
US 25."
Response - Due to the proximity of the existing road,
flexibility in alternative alignments was limited. However, as
indicated in the Environmental Assessment, and alignment
symmetrical about the existing roadway was also considered.
This symmetrical w dM would result in a greater number of
rel ocatees and,-:d6crase?,, a safety benefits as provided in the
recommended °`'lwment Additionally, the NCDOT is cognizant of
the lost parking spaces and the inconvenience it may cause.
However, the need to transition to the width of the existing
pavement is necessary for safety reasons and from an engineering
standpoint. For these reasons, and the additional cost of a
symmetrical widening, widening US 25 on the property of the
Opportunity Group is proposed.
Comment - "An addition of very real concern is the mystery of
the connector from Clear Creek to Highways 25 and 91. We feel
strongly that D.O.T. should level with us as to its most
probable route so our organization can plan accordingly."
Response - No connector between US 25 and NC 191 is proposed as
part of this project. A connector will be considered under
Project U-2425.
6.
Revisions to the Recommended Improvements
Project Costs - Updated project costs are shown below:
Construction
Right-of-way
Total
$3,950,000
5,130,000
$9,080,000*
*Exceeds T. I. P. costs by $560,000.
7.
Basis For Finding of No Significant Impact
The comments received on the Environmental Assessment did not reveal
any significant impacts resulting from the proposed improvements to US 25.
As stated in the EA, the recommended improvements would result in the
relocation of three residential and nine business establishments. It was
determined that the relocation will not result in the fragmentation of any
established neighborhoods. Furthermore, the project is supported by the
local residents.
F-7
Based upon study of the proposed project as presented in the EA, and
upon comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it is the
finding of the N. C. Department of Transportation that this project will
not have a significant impact upon the human environment. The proposed
action will not have a significant adverse impact on natural, ecological,
cultural, or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance.
The project will not have significant adverse impact on air, noise, or
water quality in Henderson County. The project is consistent with plans
and goals that have been adopted by Henderson County and the State of
North Carolina.
Therefore, and Environmental Impact Statement or further environ-
mental analysis will not be required and for all these reasons it has been
determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this
project.
TAH/plr

l
511
North Carolina
Department of Administm
?::n--cs C. Martin, Covemor
September 4, 1991
Mr. Calvin Leggett
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr.. Leggett:
J ? p< Q
?,
l ,
?l?Lames ?,,I;ofton, Secretary
P.F.: SCH File #92-E-4220-0064; Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Improvements to US 25 From NC 191 North to SR 1528
Near Hendersonville, NC (TIP #U-2106)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local
agencies in the course of this review. Because of the nature of
the comment(s), it has been determined that you may submit a
Finding of No Significant Impact to the State Clearinghouse for
compliance with the Act. The comments should be taken into
consideration in project development.
Best regards. FS bn ely,
J S. JSL jt

Attachment
cc: Region B
FA - 1
116 West Jo: t-s Strut • Ra-Heigh, North Carolina 27603.8003 • Telephone [phone]
Ac Equ: I Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
y ?T
State of North Carolina 1
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee`
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 92-0064 - EA - Widening of US 25, Henderson County
DATE: September 3, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed
widening of US 25. Generally speaking, our divisions have no
objection to the project as proposed provided the conditions in
the attached comments are followed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
Attachments
FA-2
1U. Iiux ? t;:' ILuci h, Kurth l arulma .'7t:1l a:X% Irlcphunr 1)19-733 Clio
S
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Section
DATE: August 22, 1991
SUBJECT: Administrative Action Environmental Assessment for the
widening of US 25 from NC 191 to SR 1528 in
Hendersonville, Henderson County, State Project
9.8141349, T.I.P. U-2106.
This correspondence responds to your request for our review
of the proposed widening of 2.5 miles of US 25 from NC 191 to SR
1528 (Brookside Camp Road) in Hendersonville, Henderson County.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to widen the existing roadway to a 5-lane curb and
gutter highway. The project will encroach on 0.04 acre of
wetlands associated with crossings at Britton Creek and a
tributary. Existing concrete box culverts in the streams will be
extended to accommodate a 5-lane highway.
Biological field staff of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the Environmental
Assessment and conducted a site visit on August 15, 1991.
Britton Creek (FBR 1-65-5) has a bankfull width of 5-6 feet and
substrate of silt, sand, gravel, and small cobbles. The
tributary has a bankfull width of 3-4 feet and similar substrate.
Gamefish are not present, but the streams may provide habitat for
a limited number of shiners and chubs. The riparian zones of
both streams are narrow and contain disturbed herbaceous plant
communities, providing minimal shade and cover for wildlife. An
exception is along the tributary downstream of the roadway where
willow, black locust, and other tree and shrub species provide
shade to the stream and a travel corridor for wildlife. Other
FA-3
Memo
Page 2 August 22, 1991
wildlife habitat is limited to disturbed mixed hardwoods toward
the northern end of the project. Fisheries and wildlife
resources of the project area are somewhat poor due to the urban
nature of this area.
The NCWRC will not object to the project if the following
conditions are met by NCDOT:
1) Trees and shrubs along the tributary should be preserved
as much as possible to provide shade to the stream and a
travel corridor for wildlife.
2) The extension of concrete box culverts should be
accomplished without blocking fish movement. Culverts
should be placed 12 inches below the natural stream channel.
3) A low flow notch or channel should be incorporated into
one cell of the double concrete box culvert in Britton
Creek. Deflectors should direct flow into this cell so that
most of the water enters this cell during low flow periods.
4) stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
5) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
including spoil piles, as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of project completion to provide.long term
erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please advise.
DLS/lp
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Joffrey Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
FA-4
i? axpr..?
a?
C•
ll'
,r .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
rD
n?
Jzvnes G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary ,/ Director
Project Number: 9.2--00&4- County: ?le- 11de c•t7oY)
Project Name: A z,/•5 ?s -Cro'A ?A•e• Ill -?O S• 15.2.5
Geodetic Survey D? '??. 9•??4.1349 7Z•? ?-•alOCv
? This project will impact -1- geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
J other- (comments attached) ? CO.`t? N-0-P
For ore =ar? ntact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
eviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
.control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
_ If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan*required.for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
_a7-5'/
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Enuaf Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer FA-5
to rl H - N1 Z 10 : Q ` <`! S { coI caw z
r N
LJ o 4 q a s a ?: w >d O pY
op?
?I•J . Z.
-co
? .. F= ^ ?I ?I h ?I a?. ?I ?I nl Z,l Co ? `l'?o5Ah ; . ? w .
z
Ld C14 C14
zu?
U' Q .(n
w a J
Q a V to
a F- J W p-? ? •?. V Q..
Z a
O J _
W z A'F
0 ?. ?! YQ moo'? ?m'm Z~a
a . N =lU)o
.. _• d a? . w z. o s .Q d aoi,
.J = W ... A A/ z%s?` Z. WI rCa•
z:
p
o a O' w ,I I- d
H: W
IQ aim +a w'.. I??..d L a.
:Q:T Z O CD = ;w 3' 4a i
?w
C). cr_ Er
_ .. .? . a t- J? v_? Wf v?, ap
J a •Q: OZ tRl IZ?F Q : O . ; r Z _ ' .OC _ s d lcr.
CL W Q , _ _- s
Q' C w cn mot' ?-? :.'' (' z , r ?4 w
w 2 `? J d
ell Er LL
LLJ
C
z
VD)
%
ANN* r:z;
O r1 O >a ;? r W
.- LL
w IN
v- S' JQ' U••aZ W. % ?.{? r .? :j, r •-._:. .•W ?.
l•.. A Cn r n a m 0 Z 3 ?tn p
z
v 4 xr-
C) ? '
r r-? N a w w r Y?
?[yj w.. .. .:..'. ... ..•.
%
(D ZZ
. Li
o
>- I r
?q _ ?- Z < . zz
?? ! W ~o m ??
W`rWW~
?
t l O^I j `" Lei
O Z
a- C)
10
8 `^'I G "li i?l v ?R
1 v
o ; l a r.lu;
W W O ,b 10 pq
Lf) Lo
c' cn \ W .- _ •.. n :fin a0
. O "1 a- ,,,,t LU :7
oI 0-
CL'
o...nwrE4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ..
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 27, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. Jack Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T(ann ortation
FROM: David Brook
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
/-d
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for US 25 (Asheville
Highway) from NC 191 to Brookside Camp Road
(SR 1528), Henderson County, U-2106, 9.8141349,
CH 92-E-4220-0064
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
As stated in our letter of June 8, 1989, and the Environmental Assessment, no
National Register-listed structures are located in the area of potential effect.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:siw/
cc: r State Clearinghouse
B. Church
A. Hart
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
FA. 7
LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL CC
r.-
AUG 199
J
PNCI.L
25 HERITAGE DRIVE • ASHEVILLE. NORTH CAROLI
T E L E P H O N E 1 7 0 4 1 2 5 4. 8 1 3 1
Regional Clearinghouse
N.C. Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
The Land-of-Sky Regional Council has received the attached information
about a proposal which could affect your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly.
If you wish to comment on this proposed action. complete this form and
return it with your comments to this office by _Au G, Z61 / 99/ . Comments
received after this date cannot be included in our response to the State
Clearinghouse. ?E?/?GcJL 'St J = fl AV2 THE EA)' 7JeE ^-SU /1A4- E
MENTAL- zES H6A)7- !F YNI W1514 7'D SE5 T
if you need additional time in order to obtain more information about v
the application or to formulate your comments, please call Jim Stokoe
at 254-8131 as soon as possible. An extension of the review period may be
possible.
A NOTE to Reviewers - Projects with a "C" in the State Application
Identifier (below) is a funding proposal review. Comments should focus on
the acceptability or unacceptability of the project. Projects with an "E" in
the identifier are environmental or site reviews. Comments for these projects
should focus on the adequacy of the environmental document or site selection
process.
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no
comments regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier # 92-E-VX770-00661 Regional No. 5:-92-
Commenter's Name IIDJCV Title, spn} jal P1r14
Representing- "Ili Plmn irih
(J,?cal government)
Cb Lt
-7 9)9kn
/Address CP I^
Phone 54 -? t- Date
,:2 ? 131
Comment (or attach):
.fit"1.91
SERVING REGION B: BUNCOMBE. HENDERSON. MADISON & TRANSYLVANIA COUNTIES FA-8
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
y
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
August 7, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Capps, Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
Re: State # N.C. 92-E-4220-0064
N.C. DOT - Proposed Improvements to US 25 from NC
191 North to SR 1528 near Hendersonville
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.
FA-9
An Equal OPI»rtunicy / Affirmative Action Employer
Tr , OPPOPTUNITY GRZOUP
ESTABLISFED IN 1958
ARTS • CRAFTS and CULTURAL CENTER
September 17, 1991
I am Lew Steinbach, President of Opportunity House located at 1411
Asheville Highway. We are a tax exempt, non-profit organization with over
2,000 members, most of whom are retired.
We are sympathetic to the need to widen U.S. 25, but we do have
some serious concerns about the D.O.T. plan which we want to bring to your
attention.
1. The entire widening from the present 22' to 80' is shown as
being taken from our property.
2. Our estimate is that on this basis we will lose 40 to 45
parking spaces, or 30-347 of our available parking.
3. Our lot is presently full 407 of our regular hours. Within
a year this will be 757.
4. The reduced parking availability will trigger extra traffic
movement as the overflow searches for parking with the
attendant risk of pedestrian traffic crossing U.S. 25.
An addition of very real concern is the mystery of the connector
from Clear Creek to Highways 25 and 191. We feel strongly that D.O.T. should
level with us as to its most probable route so our organization can plan ac-
cordingly.
I believe Opp House is a tremendous community asset--you might even
say business. I'm concerned that to D.O.T. we may be viewed as a bunch of old
folks who will not object or be concerned about losing some parking. Our Board
of Trustees has requested that you be advised how strongly we feel about this
proposed expropriation.
FA -10
1411 Asheville Highway • Hendersonville, N. C. 28739 • [phone]
M? VV. Wit. ?v rr? Sr,
FiH0 T0: CI-11'r]" ENCTMF;F:R - N. C.
DEPT. OP 11
AN' SPORTATI:0N
FT'.OM: ARTHUR D. HARRINGTON,
TRANFORATION COMMITEE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
RE: COMMENTS REGARDING WIDENING OF US 25 NORTH
DATE: SEPTF14D'ER 11, 1991
This appears to be a well designed project long overdue, and
much needed by Greater- Hendersonville.
One glaring deficiency, however, is the total omission of any
plan for the southern terminns of the project. The intersection of
the Clear Creek connector, SR 191 (Haywood Road), and Justice
Street ought to be designed and incorporated into this place now.
Even tho it is not constructed at the same time, a plan with
ROW corridors is essential for property owners, institutions, and
utilities to look ahead.
At present, this intersection is a "comedy" and very
dangerous. A plan for growth in an orderly fashion seems
essential.
1) r?ll krFA - 11

HENDERSON COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
100 N. King Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Matt Matteson Phone [phone]
County Planner FAX [phone]
October 9, 1991
W.A. Garrett, Jr., P.E.,
Public Hearing Officer
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O.Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina .27611
RE: PROJECT U-2106 (Widening US 25 N. from NC 191 to SR 1528)
Dear Mr. Garrett:
This is to request that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation approach the design phase of the above referenced
project with the intent to provide the greatest protection of
existing trees and to add additional street line trees wherever
possible.
Frees should be selected and sited keeping in mind public safety
factors and visibility in key commercial corridors. Trees should
be basically ornamental in nature with a general balance of
evergreen and deciduous. Trees should be placed strategically to
add an aesthetic element to compliment the overall highway design.
Like trees should be grouped, such as in front of Balfour
Elementary School.
In instances where the highway right-of-way abuts the railroad
right-of-way whereby turning lanes will serve only development on
the west side of US 25N, trees should be planted in medians which
could be constructed as shown in the attached sketch.
1 will be pleased to provide any assistance that your highway
planning or landscaping design staff personnel may need regarding
this matter.
Very truly yours,
1.'att Matteson,
County Planner
h1-V k
..r s
te
FA-12
? I
SK1? 7r 4
o t= TYPI c??
'fit=-'St<?) wKC-R
?f'c? r?guTS
R?II-Z o.?t? R.- o • ?J
G?6? or=
?whr-o?=wq?
C-?
I
I
U.S. Z5 tJ,
LOFT
TVRt-% I
wotn
I
LD
r
t_v Rb r-
(?., rr? I
I
c„c?1
c,>4
v2
I
I IZl?? S t3 t? C j
t?^Z'C1-i 1 ?
2A? i-R oia?
R-o-w
12?a
a
G.- a
Nor Tu
FA -13