Planning Commission Agenda 03-2015

Transcription

MEMORANDUM
TO:
Rock Hill Planning Commission
FROM:
Eric S. Hawkins, AICP, Planner III
RE:
Meeting Agenda
DATE:
February 25, 2015
The Rock Hill Planning Commission will hold its regularly scheduled monthly meeting
Tuesday, March 3, 2015, City Hall Council Chambers, 155 Johnston Street. An executive
session will be held at 6:00 PM in the Executive Conference Room. There are no
public hearing items this month, so the meeting will not be televised or available for viewing
online. Please feel free to call me at 329.8763 regarding any item on the following agenda.
Thank you.
AGENDA
Rock Hill Planning Commission
March 3, 2015
Executive Session 6:00 P.M. – 7:00 P.M.
Consider holding Executive Session for discussions covered by the attorney/client privilege.
Regular Session 7:00 P.M.
Pledge of Allegiance
1.
Approval of minutes of February 3, 2015, meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
2.
Consideration of a request by Joel E. Wood & Associates for Major Site Plan
approval for Access Storage. (Plan #20130532)
3.
Comprehensive Plan Update.
4.
Other Business.
5.
Adjourn.
T:\PLNDEV\DEVSVC\WORKING FILES\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\P C\2015\2015_PC03\20150303_PCAGENDA.DOC
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
155 JOHNSTON STREET, P.O. BOX 11706
ROCK HILL, SC 29731-1706, 803/329-7080
Planning Commission Agenda Items
Hwy
Mt Gallant
21
Sutt on
City of Rock Hill, SC
Planning Commission
March 3, 2015
India H
o
ok
Old Yo
rk
Celanese
Heckle
lon
Ma
in
g
2
ry
er
h
C
I-77
York
r
He
son
Ander
Dave Lyle
lls
igh
t
n
n
erso
And
de
Og
r
Alb
I-77
le
ck
He
ne
on
C
Mc
.H
Mt
oll
y
Legend
River
a
lud
Sa
¯
City Limits
#
Map Not Drawn To Scale
Agenda
Item
DR 2/23/15
Planning Commission
City of Rock Hill, South Carolina
February 3, 2015
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held Tuesday, February 3, 2015, at 7:00 P.M. in City
Council Chambers, City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Roper, Randy Graham, Duane Christopher, Gladys Robinson, Georgia
Thomas, Justin Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT
Sherry Easley
STAFF PRESENT
Eric Hawkins, Josh Reinhardt, Leah Youngblood, Bill Meyer, Janice Miller
1.
Approval of minutes of the January 6, 2015, meeting.
Mr. Christopher made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 6, 2015, meeting. Dr. Robinson
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2.
Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2015-03 by
Warren Norman Company to amend the Laurel Creek PUD Master Plan. A portion of the
property is proposed to be annexed into the City of Rock Hill. Tax parcels 590-00-00-008, 590-0000-051, 590-00-00-083, 590-00-00-096, 590-01-01-008, 590-01-01-017 & -018, 590-01-03-019, & 59001-04-007.
Mr. Hawkins presented the staff report.
Mr. Graham asked the intent of the lot containing the pond. Mr. Hawkins stated that the pond would be
used to handle stormwater for the proposed development.
Mr. Christopher asked if the area between the quadruplex units will be a common area. Mr. Hawkins
responded that the area between the units would be under common ownership of the homeowner’s
association.
Mr. Roper asked if the parcels indicated on the map as numbers 5, 6, 8, and 9 would be incorporated into
the PUD. Mr. Hawkins stated that they would be included.
Mr. Warren Norman, 2680 Claxton Drive, applicant, spoke about the project, noting that the property off
Belmar would not be developed, that the homes constructed in this area would be smaller than the
homes in Laurel Creek, and that the new section developed would be all single-family, individually
owned and deeded. He added that the pond would be assessed for stormwater concerns, that there were
no current plans for residential construction on the lots that are part of Monterey Hills. He stated that
the amenities section was not currently mapped out but that a clubhouse would be constructed along
with a walking trail and that there would be a creek amenity. He did note that the area would include a
buffer area for the Monterey Hills residents.
Mr. Christopher asked if the road at the north end of the property will connect to Twin Lakes Road. Mr.
Norman stated that it will.
Mr. Roper asked if the community would be gated. Mr. Norman stated it would not.
Mr. Roper noted that the aerial photograph showed the current pond and asked its purpose. Mr. Norman
stated that it was an existing pond not intended for detention purposes, but that they were evaluating the
area for water flow and future detention needs.
Mr. Smith asked if the pond was critical for the development of that section of Laurel Creek. Mr.
Norman stated that they were sizing the pond to account for detention purposes.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
February 3, 2015
Mr. Smith asked if one of the lots along Twin Lakes Road owned by Laurel Creek LLC would have to
be split. Mr. Norman stated that the lot would be split.
Mr. Roper asked if they owned the whole lot. Mr. Norman stated that they do, and that they intend to
subdivide it to incorporate the back portion into the proposed development. Mr. Roper asked staff if that
would create a nonconforming lot in the county. Mr. Hawkins stated that it would not, that the lot would
still conform to the county’s requirements for size, area, and setbacks.
Mr. Wilford Goforth, 1031 Belmar Lane, asked several questions regarding the request’s effect on
Monterey Hills, including incorporation into Laurel Creek, square footage of new homes, and a buffer
area. Mr. Goforth asked about a buffer in the area around the pond along Belmar. Mr. Norman stated
that there was a creek and wetlands area that would remain as a natural buffer along Belmar.
Mr. Roper asked if lots along Belmar would be built on. Mr. Norman stated they would not and that
those areas would likely be added to the back of lots in a future phase of Laurel Creek.
Mr. Sam Brown, 1069 Belmar Lane, asked if both ponds would remain a wetland area. Mr. Norman
stated they would. Mr. Brown asked if the runoff from his land to the pond would be affected. Mr.
Norman stated that it would not.
There were no further questions or comments from the audience.
Dr. Robinson presented the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning application subject to staff
comments to City Council. Mrs. Thomas seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 60.
3.
Development Solutions Group to rezone approximately 105.86 acres on Homestead Road from
Residential Conservation District I (RC-I) and Residential Development District I (RD-I) to
Master Planned Residential (MP-R). The subject property is proposed to be annexed into the City
of Rock Hill. Tax parcels 590-00-00-002 (portion), 590-00-00-003 (portion), 588-00-00-039, & 58800-00-047.
Mr. Hawkins presented the staff report and provided the Commissioners with an updated copy of the
Lakewood Forest Master Plan and Terms & Conditions document.
Dr. Robinson asked about the open space focus area constraints. Mr. Hawkins stated that the City
required a minimum amount of open space and that the applicants had included more than required in
order to preserve natural features of the site.
Mr. Christopher asked about the one street that did not have curb and gutter. Mr. Hawkins stated that
this was Deertrack Drive, an existing county maintained road. He confirmed that all new streets would
have the required curb and gutter.
Mr. Christopher asked about sidewalks and paved pathways. Mr. Hawkins stated that sidewalks would
be placed on both sides of the streets.
Mr. Roper asked about the number of units per acre for Pod 2 and if the Commission was approving the
density level. Mr. Hawkins stated the plan calls for a maximum of 42 units on 14 acres and noted that
the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for layout approval.
Mr. Roper asked for a comparison to the county’s zoning. Mr. Hawkins stated that Residential
Development I zoning allowed for multi-family uses, that the terms and conditions presented by the
applicant for this project were more restrictive.
Mr. Smith asked about the garage design detailed in the Terms and Conditions documents. Mr.
Hawkins stated that the intent of the standards was to minimize protruding garages in order to keep the
Page 3
February 3, 2015
garage from becoming the dominant feature on residences. Mr. Christopher observed that many people
are using these as storage areas and parking in the front of houses, and that the garage still stood out as a
feature.
Mr. Brian Iagnemma, 9705 Agile Circle, Waxhaw, NC, representing Essex Homes as applicant,
provided the Commissioners with a presentation about the proposed community and described the
company’s background and philosophy. He noted that the neighborhood meeting was very positive, that
the neighbors were pleased with the designs presented and the fact that all 161 homes proposed would
be single family detached homes. He noted that there would be 20 estate lots towards the back of the
property which would be large lots, and noted that half of the land would remain as undisturbed with a
buffer surrounding the entire property. He noted that they could not prevent the secondary entrance off
Deertrack Drive as it was required by the City, but that they were willing to do needed improvements at
the Homestead Road/Deertrack Drive intersection although not required by the traffic impact analysis.
Mrs. Thomas asked the pricing structure. Mr. Iagnemma stated the pricing structure was low $200K to
mid-$300K for the 55’ wide lots, and higher on the estate lots.
Mr. Roper asked if the amenity area depicted was definite. Mr. Iagnemma stated that it would be placed
where proposed, but there may be some modifications to what was offered.
Mr. Iagnemma addressed Mr. Smith’s questions on the garages, noting that it was difficult to place them
on the side of the houses to accommodate two cars. He stated that they chose to address this situation by
adding carriage hardware to break up the white space created by the doors. Glass sections will also be
offered as an option for the garage doors.
Mr. Roper asked if the homes would be built on a slab or crawl space. Mr. Iagnemma stated that there
would be a mixture of both with some homes built on a basement due to the topography of some of the
lots. Mr. Iagnemma also noted that the intent was to keep cars parked on the residential lots, not on the
streets.
Mr. Smith asked if the designs submitted were the only ones for this development. Mr. Iagnemma stated
that these were a representative of designs proposed, that three new ranch styles were being worked on
as well as updates of current designs.
Dr. Robinson asked for clarification on the glass sections for the garage doors. Mr. Iagnemma stated
that this was offered as an option to the buyer as a decorative element.
Mr. George Davis, 3160 Homestead Road, spoke regarding the amount of traffic that would be created
as result of the development. He stated that tankers and trucks use Twin Lakes and Homestead as a cut
through to reach the rear of the QuikTrip station off Bryant Boulevard. He also brought up safety
concerns for pedestrians and cyclists.
Mr. Kevin Rogers, 1006 Deertrack Drive, spoke regarding concern over the environmental impacts of
grading. He presented a petition of 25 signatures against the connection to Deertrack Drive. He
requested that the road be moved further up than proposed, a buffer be installed, a private road sign be
installed, and speed humps be installed to deter traffic congestion. He provided staff with a copy of
several photographs of Deertrack Drive and the original petition for the record.
Mr. Roper asked about the required traffic impact analysis. Mr. Kent Olson, developer, stated that there
was no motivation for anyone to use Deertrack Drive, but that the emergency access was necessary to
provide access in the event the other access drive was blocked for some reason. He also stated that a
buffer would be maintained along Deertrack Drive.
Mr. Christopher asked the anticipated speed limit in the proposed development. Mr. Olson stated 25
miles per hour.
Page 4
February 3, 2015
Mr. Roper asked about the possibility of connecting Deertrack Drive at a point closer to Homestead
Road instead of at the location currently proposed. Mr. Keith Rains, project engineer, stated that site
distance profiles indicated that this site was appropriate, but that they could move the connector if
needed. Mr. Roper added that even if the applicant proposed only one connection, the Commission
would require two access points for the site.
Mr. Rains noted that they would follow all best management practices to mitigate any environmental
impacts to the site and the neighboring properties, adding that the only major impact would be the sewer
connection at Dutchman Creek.
Mr. Graham asked if the intersection at Deadwood Drive and Blackstar Drive would be a four way stop.
Mr. Rains stated they would place signs as required.
Mr. Graham asked if this was in the Airport Overlay. Mr. Rains stated that it was not.
Ms. Susan Britt, 1097 Deertrack Drive, stated that it would be better for Blackstar Drive to be relocated
further up and off the curve because several accidents had occurred in that area. She stated that it would
also be desired for the grading to be done as the development is phased in with the amenities constructed
after 80 houses were completed. She also noted that many grand trees would be lost and would need
replacing. She added that there were severe topographical issues that would need to be addressed, along
with sewer issues and the lack of a pump station in the area.
Mr. Tim Ellis, 1098 Deertrack Drive, addressed the issues of traffic blockage, noting that the second
access point was not helpful if blocking occurred in the back of the property. He stated that most people
in the back section would use Deertrack Drive.
Mr. Roper clarified that the City required a second access point once a certain number of lots were
proposed as part of a development plan.
Mr. Robert McCleave, 3396 Homestead Road, stated that there was a great deal of wildlife in the area
that would be lost. He asked that grading north of Blackstar Drive not occur until after 80 houses were
completed.
Ms. Cynthia Andrews, 1073 Deertrack Drive, stated that Deertrack Drive was narrow in areas with trees
growing close to the street. She added that many people rode bicycles in the area and that it was not
well suited for traffic. She added that it was a dead end and asked that the Commission take that into
consideration.
Mr. Frank McNinch, 1026 Deertrack Drive, stated that the road proposed to intersect Deertrack Drive
was in a bad spot and asked that it be moved further up towards Homestead Road. He also noted that
many residents were looking forward to having sidewalks in the area.
Mr. Christopher asked the speed limit on Deertrack Drive. Ms. Britt stated 25 miles per hour.
Mr. Smith asked if there was a homeowner association. Ms. Britt stated there was not.
Mr. Smith asked about the county process for speed humps. Ms. Britt stated that the county would not
install one because of the short length of the road and the fact that it was a dead end.
Mr. Roper asked if the developer could respond to the timing of grading. Mr. Rains stated that it was
difficult to commit to because of the possible need for dirt from the back of the property to fill in at the
front. He noted that standards regarding sediment control were more stringent than it used to be and that
this would govern how grading was done.
Mr. Christopher presented the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the application subject
Page 5
February 3, 2015
to staff comments and with the stipulation that Farmbrook Lane extend to connect to Deertrack Drive
instead of Blackstar Drive. Dr. Robinson seconded.
Mr. Smith asked if the phasing should be considered as part of the recommendation. Mr. Roper stated
that they could encourage this action but could not require it. Mr. Christopher added that grading plans
had to be taken into account. Mr. Graham stated that with regards to the traffic concerns, the applicants
were willing to do improvements not required.
Mr. Roper called for a vote, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
4.
Halpern Enterprises Inc. to rezone approximately 12.2 acres at 2550 W. Main Street from
Residential Conservation-I (RC-I) in York County and General Commercial (GC) to Master
Planned-Commercial (MP-C). A portion of the subject property is proposed to be annexed into
the City of Rock Hill. Tax parcels 540-01-01-051, & 069, 540-02-02-002, 540-02-02-003 (portion),
540-02-02-004 (portion), & 540-02-02-005 (portion).
Mr. Graham recused himself as a representative for one of the involved parties.
Mr. Hawkins presented the staff report, noting that the out-lot on Rawlinson Road had been removed
from the rezoning proposal. He also noted the new copies of the Terms & Conditions document
provided to the Commissioners that evening that resolved staff comments.
Mr. Roper asked if the extension on the rear was to remain wooded. Mr. Hawkins stated that the plan
shows that it will remain undeveloped.
Mr. Roper asked about the plans for the right-of-way at the rear of the property. Mr. Hawkins stated that
the applicant plans to close the portion of the right-of-way that is within the development site. The
portion of the right-of-way to the east would remain if needed for future access to adjoining property.
He added that the three adjoining parcels between the site and Rawlinson Road will be combined so that
none will be landlocked.
Mr. Smith asked why the boundary shown on the Master Plan is different than the boundary shown on
the rezoning map. Mr. Hawkins stated that the plan is based on a recent survey of the property and
shows the correct boundary.
Mrs. Thomas asked if cars could only make a right in and right out from West Main Street. Mr.
Hawkins stated that both access points on West Main Street are full access and only the first drive off
Rawlinson Road closest to West Main would be right in/right out.
Mr. Smith asked the reasoning for the reduction in traffic counts from 2008 to 2013. Mr. Hawkins
stated he did not know the reason for the decrease.
Mr. Steve West, Vice President of Development, Halpern & Associates, applicant, provided background
on the company. He noted that Rawlinson Plaza had not been a viable business enterprise for a number
of years, mainly because the anchor store area was not visible from the street although the center was in
a great location. He stated that renovations would take place in part of the existing building while the
rest would be demolished, and that a new WalMart Neighborhood Market with drive through pharmacy
and gas station would be constructed facing West Main Street. He added that only the existing
driveways would be used and that an additional drive towards the rear of the property at Rawlinson
Road would provide additional access.
Mr. Roper asked if the traffic pattern was the same as other locations, especially with the addition of the
pharmacy drive through. Mr. West stated that the configuration was the same as it would be for any
corner lot, that they were treating this as if it were an empty lot.
Page 6
February 3, 2015
Mr. Roper asked about the units that would remain. Mr. West stated four of the recently created units
that face West Main Street would remain.
Mr. Roper asked if Mr. West is aware that he would have to amend the proposed master plan in order to
develop the large area to the rear of the property. Mr. West stated that they only needed a small area for
the detention pond but the owner wanted to sell the whole parcel. He noted that there were no buildings
or other improvements planned for the rear of the property. He added that they would not cut any of the
trees down unless absolutely necessary to borrow fill for part of the site. If any clearing is done, it will
be outside of the sixty-foot buffer area shown on the plan.
Mr. Christopher asked if they would provide a stub-out to the right-of-way that connects to the east for
connectivity. Mr. West stated that a connection to the adjoining property is provided for near the front
of the site so that when the adjacent property is developed, it would allow access.
Mr. Christopher asked about the proposed reduction of the buffer for the portion of the property near
Rawlinson Road. Mr. West stated that proposal will be formalized through an easement agreement with
the adjoining owner. A stub-out to that property is also provided in case a connection is needed in the
future.
Mr. Gary Cheney, 1087 Hummingbird Lane, stated his only concern was the increase in the amount of
traffic and crime. He noted that in statistics obtained from the Rock Hill Police Department, crime
increased in the area around the Newport WalMart since its opening several years ago. He also noted
the three schools that share the intersection and the increase in traffic before and after the school day.
Mr. Ray Howard, 1075 Sloan Drive, stated his concern was over the amount of traffic as well.
Dr. Robinson presented the motion to recommend approval of the application subject to staff comments.
Mr. Smith seconded. Mr. Roper commented that regardless of the business model the current
development was unsuccessful, and that there will be more traffic, but no more than if the current
shopping center was successful.
Mr. Roper called for a vote and the motion carried by a vote of 5-0, with Mr. Graham recusing.
5.
Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition T-2015-02 by
Rock Hill City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance affecting Article 6: Development and
Design Standards, and Article 10: Definitions & Rules for Interpretation, in relation to signs.
Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
Mr. Graham presented the motion to recommend approval of the amendments to City Council as
presented. Mr. Christopher seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS
6.
Consideration of a request by Cherry Road Developers LLC for Major Site Plan Approval for
Cherry Road Storage. (Plan #20140963)
Mr. Reinhardt presented the staff report.
Mr. Graham presented the motion to approve the Major Site Plan as submitted, subject to staff
comments. Mr. Christopher seconded. Mr. Christopher asked about stormwater detention. Mr.
Reinhardt stated that these would be worked out in the civil plan process due to constraints on the
property with the restaurant and the Duke power lines.
Page 7
February 3, 2015
Mr. Roper called for a vote and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
9.
10.
Other Business
a.
Mr. Christopher asked about the lot clearing at Ebenezer Road where the house was demolished
and the large trees that had been removed. Mr. Graham stated that this was the new office for
Dr. Tripp Leitner’s orthodontic office. Mr. Hawkins stated that the developer will have to
mitigate the loss of trees, approximately three 6” caliper trees for each heritage tree cut down.
b.
Mr. Smith asked if Council would have a public hearing as well for the items the Commission
had heard that evening. Mr. Roper stated they would not, that the Planning Commission was the
public hearing forum, but that the Mayor sometimes allowed people to speak at the Council
meetings.
c.
Mr. Hawkins reminded the Commissioners about the workshop to be held prior to the next
meeting, and several other continuing education opportunities.
Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45PM.
Planning Commission
Staff Report
March 3, 2015 ~ Agenda Item #2
Project Name:
Access Storage
Plan Type:
Major Site Plan
Plan Number:
20130532
Tax Map Number:
662-07-01-001
Location:
2217 Eden Terrace
Owner/Contact:
Mark Walker
(803) 492-5584
Land Use Information
Type:
Zoning:
Land Area:
Background
The proposed development site is comprised of one parcel
within the General Commercial zoning district. The site is
currently undeveloped and is surrounded by multifamily
residential units and commercial uses.
Dev. Information
Buildings:
Floors:
Floor Area:
Parking
The provided site plan shows 4 parking spaces. The
required parking for the development will be based on the
number of storage units (one space per 100 units) and
amount of office space (one space per 250 square feet). The
applicant will need to provide an estimate of the number of
proposed storage units to verify that the provided parking
numbers are adequate.
Pedestrian Access
A public sidewalk will be required to be constructed along
Eden Terrace. Also, a connection from the building entry to
the new sidewalk along Eden Terrace will be required. A
pedestrian zone will need to be incorporated near the
entrance of the building.
Open Space
Required:
.38 acres (15%)
Provided:
Actual open space is not shown on the plan but
will be shown on future plans to verify that the requirement is
met.
Landscaping
The plan will demonstrate compliance with tree retention and
landscape requirements including streetscape, building
foundation and buffers.
Design Standards
The building design will comply with all standards of the
Self-Service Storage (Mini-Warehouses)
General Commercial (GC)
2.57 acres
Six
Two
32,525 square feet
Access Storage
Page 2
March 3, 2015
Zoning Ordinance. The front façade facing Eden Terrace will
meet the commercial design standards and the exterior
facades of the buildings will have a uniform architectural
treatment.
Special Notes:
There are no major comments concerning the proposed
layout shown on the Major Site Plan. However, there are
review comments that will need to be addressed with the
civil plans for the site. Most of the comments are editorial in
nature and not likely to result in substantial changes to the
proposed building layout.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Major Site Plan subject to
staff comments.
Attachments:
Major Site Plan
Plan Review Comments
Access Storage - Plan Review Comments
Review of:
Status:
Project:
P. 1 of 2
Major Site Plan
Not Approved
Access Storage
Plan #20130532
Review Comments
Utilities: Not Approved
- A 10’ utility easement will be required to be shown across the front of the property in which no trees are
allowed.
Inspections: Not Approved
- The plan will need to address accessible parking standards, fire hydrant locations and compliance with
fire apparatus access and turn around capability.
Zoning: Not Approved
- Sidewalk will be required to be constructed along Eden Terrace.
- A sidewalk connection will need to be provided from the building entrance on Eden Terrace to the public
sidewalk.
- The fence that is shown along Eden Terrace will need to be at least 25’ back from the property line as
fences are not permitted to be located in the front setbacks of commercial uses.
- At least 15% of the site is required to be open space. Please show the open space areas on the site plan.
- A pedestrian zone including landscaping and an amenity such as benches, fountains, or public art will
need to be provided near the entrance the building.
- A minimum of 35’ of stacking will need to be provided at the entrance to the site off of Eden Terrace.
- Please provide an estimate of the number of proposed storage units to verify the provided parking
numbers.
- Provide details for the dumpster enclosure and be aware that the dumpster enclosure should match the
materials on the building façade.
- A lighting plan will need to be submitted to show compliance with section 6-700 of the ordinance.
- Will be required to meet all of the use specific requirements for a mini warehouse development including
hours of operation being limited to 6:00 am – 10:00 pm.
- Will meet all of the required design standards.
Infrastructure-Landscaping: Not Approved
- Will be required to show plan meets canopy tree requirement and the required foundation planting along
Eden Terrace.
Infrastructure-Roadway: Not Approved
- Dumpster pad alignment should be shifted to be parallel with Eden Terrace.
- Heavy duty pavement will be required for the truck circulation path.
Infrastructure-Water & Sewer: Not Approved
- Sanitary sewer design needs to be submitted as part of the revised civil plans and will be required to meet
all of the standards for sewer. This design will need to include all of the necessary information and
applications for the extension of the sewer line from Anderson Rd to the site.
Infrastructure-Stormwater: Not Approved
Access Storage - Plan Review Comments
P. 2 of 2
- Several items regarding storm water still need to be addressed in the revised civil plans. Further
information is required on the outlet structure configuration, the underground detention facility and several
other items regarding how the storm water will be handled and mitigated on the site.
Memorandum Date March 3, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: William D. Meyer, Planning & Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Efforts Staff has been hard at work updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan since we presented the planning process outline to you in April 2014. Notable achievements include: 


Existing conditions documentation has been updated for 6 of 9 required elements. An existing conditions document has been drafted for a new Public Health Element. Over 20 in‐person interviews were held with City staff, County staff, and relevant agencies and organizations  Phone and in‐person interviews were held with local developers, homebuilders, and realtors  Six focus group meetings were held on the topics of housing, natural resources, cultural resources, transportation, community facilities, and public health  “Focus” documents were developed for the housing, natural resources, cultural resources, and transportation elements In order to meet our goal of making the plan more focused, realistic, and easier to understand and absorb, staff intends to develop three different plan deliverables:  Existing conditions documents that provide background and existing conditions information for each element. These documents will provide the baseline information needed to help staff, focus groups, and citizens develop strengths, challenges, and recommendations for each plan element. These documents will be available on the website for those interested in delving into data or the contents of a specific element in great detail.  A more concise plan document (aka “focus” document) including key facts and figures from each existing conditions document, but focusing on strengths and challenges, identifying areas of Comprehensive Plan Update Page 2 March 3, 2015 focus, and recommendations for implementation. This document is intended for use by City Management, City Council, Planning Commission, City Staff, and interested public.  A pamphlet identifying the City’s key areas of focus and providing a concise summary of the comprehensive plan. This resource is intended for the general public and anyone else looking to quickly familiarize themselves with the purpose and goals of the plan. We have attached the draft existing conditions document and “focus” document for the Transportation Element to give you a better understanding of the different plan deliverables. We are interested in getting your thoughts on both our progress to date and the plan deliverables. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
OVERVIEW
Rock Hill’s citizens rely on various modes of transportation for work, school, and recreational activities.
These transportation alternatives include automobiles, bicycles, pedestrian trails, public transit, aircraft,
and others. Given the number and variety of transportation choices, it is important that all transportation
systems, facilities, and options be examined in a thorough and comprehensive manner, so that those who
live, work, recreate, and do business here are aware of, and can benefit from them all.
Transportation is an essential element in that it evaluates existing transportation facilities and systems
and plans for their growth or change in light of critical local topics such as population, economic
development, and most importantly, land use. Planning for the impact of population growth and new
development on the roadways and transportation networks will be essential to maintaining the general
health, safety and welfare of Rock Hill’s residents, workers, and visitors. This Element examines current
facilities, programs, and plans that affect the transportation system within the Rock Hill area.
Transportation networks and facilities are influenced by, and must be responsive to, many factors. These
factors include land use, populations, inter- and intra-city transport, and others. Because of these factors,
transportation for Rock Hill must be studied and addressed on a more regional level, as transportation
networks and facilities do not end at the City’s corporate limits.
PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
Transportation planning in Rock Hill is largely handled by the Rock Hill – Fort Mill Area Transportation
Study (RFATS), but as a funding member the City provides regular input into the development of RFATS’
plans and has representation on several RFATS’ committees/teams. SCDOT plays a large role in
planning and service delivery as well because of the high percentage of roads they own and maintain as
well as their role in distribution of federal funding. More details on each entity’s role in transportation
planning are provided below.
Rock Hill Planning & Development
The City of Rock Hill has a Transportation Manager that represents the City on the Rock Hill Traffic
Commission and is a member of the RFATS Technical Team. The Transportation Manager is the
principal point of contact for identifying and tracking transportation project needs and supporting studies.
The Transportation Manager also actively coordinates with the Project Management Division in
maintaining a comprehensive list of needed improvements and/or upgrades to the City’s transportation
network.
Rock Hill – Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS)
The Rock Hill – Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) responsible for transportation planning in eastern York County as well as the panhandle of
Lancaster County. Map 3.1 shows the RFATS planning area which includes the City of Rock Hill, the
Town of Fort Mill, the City of Tega Cay, York County, the Catawba Indian Nation, and the panhandle of
Lancaster County.
RFATS primary responsibilities include the maintenance and periodic updating of a Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) that covers a 20 to 25 year planning horizon and serves as the principal
planning instrument regarding the identification, prioritization, and funding of regional transportation
projects within the City of Rock Hill and the broader RFATS planning area. The current 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan was adopted in June 2013. Identified project priorities from this effort are reflected in
Table 3.1. Of the $63 million priority projects identified in the study area, about half of the funding ($31.5
million) is identified for projects within Rock Hill.
1
Table 3.1: RFATS’s Top Priorities for Federally Funded Projects
Project
2013 Cost Estimate
Roadway Widenings
Fort Mill Highway (SC-160) from Springfield Pkwy (SC 460)
to Rosemont-McMillian Business Park
$15,700,000
Cel-River/Red River Road (S-50) from Southern Eden Terrace
Extension (S-645) to Dave Lyle Boulevard (SC 122)
$14,000,000
Interchange Projects
I-77 (Exit 82C) and Celanese Road (SC 161)
$15,500,000
I-77 and SC-160
$15,500,000
I-77 and Anderson Road (SC 5/US 21)
$2,000,000
Feasibility Study
East-West Connector
TOTAL
$350,000
$63,050,000
Source: 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update
As the LRTP covers a longer term planning time horizon, RFATS is also responsible for maintaining a
shorter term planning document known as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that identifies
those projects scheduled to be implemented over the next four to six years within the region. The current
FY 2014-19 TIP, includes over $184 million in project activity. Map 3.2 shows the location of these
planned projects. About one quarter ($47.5 million) of currently programmed funding (RFATS and federal
funding from SCDOT) is programmed for projects within Rock Hill.
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)
Almost half of the roads in the 2020 Planning Area are owned by the South Carolina Department of
Transportation (SCDOT). As such, SCDOT plays a large role in transportation planning and service
delivery within the City. All improvements to SCDOT-owned facilities or areas within their rights-of-way
must be approved by SCDOT and are most often partially, if not fully funded, by them. SCDOT officials
and staff also hold positions on the Rock Hill City Traffic Commission as well as the RFATS Technical
Team and Policy Committee.
SCDOT provides funding support through a variety of programs for addressing local transportation needs.
Notable programs include: (1) the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ),
that supports needed improvements at our most congested intersections; (2) the Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP), that supports more pedestrian oriented safety and connectivity needs; and
and (3) the State Mass Transit Funds (SMTF) Program, that provides funding support for public transit
options like York County Access and the CATS 82X route. SCDOT also distributes an annual allocation
of federal Guideshare funding to RFATS that supports larger scale projects like corridor improvements or
interchange upgrades as reflected in Table 3.1.
2
Map 3.1: RFATS Study Area
Source: RFATS
3
Map 3.2: TIP Projects
4
STREET OWNERSHIP & MAINTENANCE
Of the 754 miles of roadway within the Planning Area, 398.5 miles, or 46 percent, are owned by SCDOT
(see Map 3.3). By comparison, the City owns 194 miles of roadway, or 34 percent. The remaining roads
are owned by the County or are privately held.
Entities that own the roads are responsible for maintenance. South Carolina’s highway system of over
41,000 miles is the nation’s fourth largest.
At 16 cents per gallon (unchanged since 1987) South
Carolina also has the fourth lowest gas tax for roadway funding. The large amount of roads for which
SCDOT is responsible, combined with limited funding, creates shortfalls in funding for maintenance.
SCDOT has begun to transfer, and will almost certainly continue to transfer, roads to municipalities allocating maintenance responsibilities to local governments. Local maintenance budgets, including in
Rock Hill, are already insufficient to meet needs.
5
Map 3.3: Street Ownership & Maintenance
6
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes according
to the character of the traffic and the degree of land access that they allow. The four classifications in
the 2020 Planning Area are principal arterials, minor arterials, collector streets, and local streets.
NEW FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DATA WILL BE AVAILABLE THROUGH SCDOT IN MAY
2015.
Principal Arterials
Arterials provide the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest uninterrupted distance.
They carry traffic into and out of the region and typically have low accessibility from neighboring roads.
Principal arterials (including freeways and expressways) in the 2020 Planning Area include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I-77
US-21 (Cherry Road)
SC-161 (Celanese Road)
SC 5 (Main Street)
SC 122 (Dave Lyle Boulevard)
SC-901 (Heckle Boulevard)
SC 72 (Albright Road)
US-21 Bypass (Anderson Road)
Minor Arterials
Minor arterials connect with the principal arterials and provide access between smaller communities
within the urban area. Minor arterials in the 2020 Planning Area include:
• SC-274 (Ebenezer Road)
• India Hook Road/Herlong Avenue
• Mt. Gallant Road
• Ebinport Road
• Saluda Street
• Constitution Boulevard
• Charlotte Avenue
• Oakland Avenue
Collectors
Collectors provide a less highly developed level of service at a lower speed for shorter distances by
collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials. Collector streets are often built with
development and need to be constantly planned for as new areas develop. Collector streets in the 2020
Planning Area include:
• Cel-River Road/Red River Road
• Eden Terrace Road
• McConnells Highway
• McDow Drive
• Crawford Road
• White Street
• Stonewall Avenue
Locals
Local facilities provide greater access and the least amount of mobility. These facilities typically connect
to one another or to collector streets and provide a high level of access to adjacent land
uses/development. Locals serve short distance travel and have low posted speed limits. The majority of
roadways within the 2020 Planning Area are classified as locals.
Map 3.4 shows the functional classifications of roadways in the 2020 Planning Area.
7
Map 3.4: Roadway Functional Classifications
8
TRAFFIC VOLUMES & CONGESTION
A review of existing and historic average daily traffic volumes reveals increasing traffic volumes along
most of the roadways within the 2020 Planning Area. Average daily traffic volumes represent the total
number of vehicles traveling along a roadway segment on an average day. The highest traffic volumes in
the Planning Area occur along Celanese Road, Cherry Road, and Dave Lyle Boulevard (see Map 3.5).
These volumes range from 17,600 vehicles per day (vpd) to 37,800 vpd. Other streets with notably high
volumes include Heckle Boulevard, Albright Road, Anderson Road, and Main Street.
Traffic volumes alone should not be used to determine congested corridors because this measurement
does not take into account different functional classifications and roadway capacities. A better
measurement for this comparison is volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. V/C ratios are calculated by dividing
the traffic volume of a roadway segment by the theoretical capacity of the roadway.
These ratios can be compared to a roadway Level of Service (LOS), which places roadways into six letter
grade levels of the quality of service to a typical traveler on a facility. An “A” describes the highest level
(least congestion) and level “F” describes the lowest level (most congestion).
According to 2013 peak hour LOS data from SCDOT, portions of Celanese Road, Cherry Road, Dave
Lyle Boulevard, Mt. Gallant Road, and Albright Road have high levels of congestion, operating at a LOS
D during peak hours (see Map 3.6). According to the RFATS Congestion Management Plan Update,
eight of the 10 roadway segments projected to have the highest P.M. peak congestion in the RFATS
Study Area in 2035 are in Rock Hill (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: RFATS’s 2035 Top Congested Roadways
2035 P.M. Peak Conditions
No.
Road
Location
2
Dave Lyle Boulevard
Charlotte Ave and Oakland Ave
3
Cherry Road
Anderson Rd and I-77 S (Exit 82)
4
Main St West
McFadden St and N Cherry Rd
5
Celanese Road
Mount Gallant Rd and India Hook Rd
7
Cherry Road
McGuire Dr and Riverside Dr
8
Cherry Road
Interchange with I-77 (Exit 90)
9
Anderson Road South
Interchange with I-77 (Exit 77)
10
Albright Road
Main St and Black St
Source: RFATS Congestion Management Plan Update
9
Map 3.5: Average Daily Traffic Volumes
10
Map 3.6: Peak Hour Level of Service
11
TRAFFIC SAFETY
rd
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), South Carolina had the 3
nd
th
highest fatality rate in the nation, the 2 highest pedestrian fatality rate, and the 5 highest bicycle fatality
th
rate in 2011. According to the 2009 South Carolina Traffic Collision Fact Book, York County ranked 7 in
th
th
the state in total collisions, 12 in fatal collisions, and 8 in injury collisions. The estimated economic loss
due to these collisions was estimated at $94 million.
Between 2010-2013, two-thirds of traffic collisions (66 percent) in York County took place within Rock Hill
(see Table 3.3). Despite having the majority of collisions, only 15 percent of the fatal collisions in the
County occurred in Rock Hill.
Table 3.3: Collision Data
Total Collisions
# of Fatal Collisions
Rock Hill York County Rock Hill York County
2010
3,130
4,563
3
26
2011
3,020
4,426
6
31
2012
3,144
4,654
2
26
2013
3,007
5,133
5
21
Total
12,301
18,776
16
104
RH % of total
66%
15%
Source: Rock Hill data - City of Rock Hill Police Department
York County data- Department of Public Safety
The top ten accident locations between 2010 and 2013 are listed in Table 3.4 and shown in Map 3.7.
Four of the top 10 accident locations are on Celanese Road.
Table 3.4: Crash Study Intersections (January 2010 to December 2013)
No.
Intersection
Crashes
1
Celanese Rd. & Riverchase Blvd.
203
2
Celanese Rd. & India Hook Rd.
200
3
Mt. Gallant Rd. & Cherry Rd.
181
4
Herlong Ave. & Heckle Blvd.
169
5
Dave Lyle Blvd. & I-77
167
6
Celanese Rd. & Mt. Gallant Rd.
155
7
Celanese Rd. & I-77
154
8
Ebenezer Rd. & Herlong Ave.
135
9
Cherry Rd. & I-77
129
Dave Lyle Blvd. & John Ross/Springsteen Pkwy.
124
10
Source: City of Rock Hill Police Department
ADD SOMETHING ABOUT ACCIDENTS WHEN CONSIDERING TRAFFIC VOLUME.
Contributing factors to a high crash frequency include intersection design, access considerations, and
traffic congestion. It should be noted that driver inattention can also represent an additional contributing
variable – though outside of the physical structure of the transportation network. That said, many of the
locations identified with high crash frequency were also locations where traffic congestion exists, which
12
warrants a continued focus on undertaking needed intersection upgrades to improve vehicular traffic flow
throughout the City.
According to the RFATS Congestion Management Plan, half of the identified locations with safety
concerns in the study area are located in Rock Hill. These locations, which include individual
intersections and segments of roadway corridor, are listed in Table 3.5 and shown in Map 3.7.
Table 3.5: RFAT’s Top Safety Concern Locations
Map ID
Locations
Description
Triangle of intersections formed by Anderson
Road/Main Street/Cowan Road
Old York Road at Heckle Blvd
Specifically on Heckle Blvd from Rock Hill
Fire Station to Wendy's Restaurant
a
SC 121/SC 5/US 21*
b
d
SC 901/SC 161*
Heckle Blvd (SC 901) north and south of
Herlong Ave
SC 161/Riverchase Blvd*
e
SC 161/I-77*
Northbound on ramp EB/WB merge
f
SC 122*
Dave Lyle Blvd and Tinsley Way
g
I-77 Interchanges - Exit 77*
Traffic backs up on off-ramps to mainline
h
I-77 Interchanges - Exit 79*
i
I-77 Interchanges - Exit 82 A, B, C*
Herlong Ave from Heckle Blvd (SC 901) to
Ebenezer Road (SC 274)
S. Cherry Road (SC 322) from Oakland
Ave (US 21) to Camden Ave
Intersection of Mt Gallant Rd (SC 195) and
India Hook Road (S-30)*
Intersection of Mt Gallant Rd (S-195) and
Redwood Dr*
SC 322, McConnells Hwy and S-561,
Meadow Lakes Rd*
c
j
k
l
m
n
Adjacent to Winthrop University
Note: *Isolated intersection location. All other listings are roadway corridors
Source: RFATS Congestion Management Plan Update
13
Map 3.7: Top Accident and Safety Concern Locations
14
STREET CONNECTIVITY
An interconnected street network makes travel more efficient by providing choices in both modes and
routes.
The City promotes connectivity through design standards detailed in the zoning ordinance. Developments
are required to meet a minimum connectivity index score wherever possible. These requirements ensure
that developments tie into the existing street network or provide stub-outs to connect to future
development. Although the City has connectivity requirements in place, existing neighborhoods have
successfully protested against connections to new, adjacent neighborhoods which have increased
congestion on arterial and collector streets.
COMPLETE STREETS
The City has successfully incorporated complete streets principles into the zoning ordinance. The street
specification standards detail on-street parking requirements, right of way widths, and sidewalk
requirements. Bike lanes are required on all new City arterial and collector streets. Additionally, cross
sections depict the design of each roadway type. Typical cross sections include street trees, sidewalks,
bicycle lanes, and on street parking.
As discussed in the Street Ownership & Maintenance section above, 46 percent of streets in the City are
owned by SCDOT. The design of the streets in Rock Hill is largely dependent on SCDOT standards.
Currently SCDOT has an Engineering Directive (Memorandum 22) that requires staff to consider
provision of bicycle facilities when planning a road widening and provides guidance on design
requirements for bicycle accommodations.
ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRAVEL
General Characteristics
As discussed in the Population Element, Rock Hill has a young population when compared to other
Charlotte ring cities, but the population in Rock Hill is aging. Both younger and older populations drive
less and use alternative transportation modes more and trends indicate that more people want to live in
places where they can easily walk, bike, and take public transportation. Younger adults are also often
more conscious of environmental and health impacts as well. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are
necessary to both attract and retain young people and make it possible for older adults to age in place.
These facilities are equally attractive to other groups as well, including people with disabilities or low
incomes and provide numerous benefits to people of all ages.
Walking and Biking
Although automobiles are the primary means of transportation for Rock Hill’s residents, there is a growing
interest in the City in walking and biking not only for recreational and exercise purposes, but as a means
to get to and from work or run errands.
The City has well developed sidewalk networks within Old Town, the Manchester/Galleria area,
Riverwalk, and areas north of downtown where the majority of new development has occurred. New
sidewalks are constructed as a part of the development process (five foot sidewalks are required on both
sides of most street types in most zoning districts) and can be programmed into Pennies for Progress
projects.
15
Map 3.8: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
16
Many older developments were built before sidewalk requirements were in place, creating gaps in the
existing sidewalk network. In 2003, the City developed a Trails and Greenways Master Plan whose main
focus was connecting major destinations, primarily by sidewalk. The plan, and its 2008 update, identified
the eight existing sidewalks that are integral to the trail system and 15 sidewalks that should be installed
because they connect to major City destinations. Map 3.8 shows the integral existing sidewalks as well as
the top areas for new sidewalk construction.
The City budgets about $100,000 annually for sidewalk maintenance on City-owned streets, which
equates to about one-half mile of sidewalk. Improvements are made to remove trip hazards and ensure
ADA compliance. There is no formal process for evaluating the condition of existing sidewalk or
determining which sidewalks to repair beyond balancing repairs among Council districts.
The City also has about 14 miles of trails (not including trails inside of parks). In addition to identifying
priority sidewalks, the Trails and Greenways Master Plan identifies priority multi-purpose and greenway
trail locations (see Map 3.8). On average, only $100,000 of funding is allocated to trail paving and
construction in the City annually through Hospitality Tax funds. This equates to construction of less than
a quarter mile of trail per year. The City allocates $50,000 to trail maintenance.
Over the last few years the City has increased its efforts to support bicycling. The City striped its first
bicycle lanes in 2013 and also marked others with shared bicycle markings or “sharrows.” Approximately
30 miles of bikeways (including bike lanes, signed routes, “sharrows,” and multi-purpose trails and
greenways) are available for bicycle transportation.
The City has also undertaken a variety of other bicycle activities including arranging bicycling safety
classes, identifying bike racks in downtown, and participating in an initiative undertaken by York County to
locate and prioritize bike lanes to be considered in the next “Pennies for Progress” funding cycle. The City
has also partnered with Winthrop University to conduct a joint bike route survey and to develop the
College Town Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (see the Transportation Plans and Studies section for more
details). These efforts led to a Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community award from The League of
American Bicyclists in 2013.
Although the City has made great strides in recent years, the bicycle network is still largely fragmented
and limited. Existing and planned bicycle facilities and routes are shown in Map 3.8.
Safe Routes to School
There are 12 schools in Rock Hill that are partners with Safe Routes to School (SRTS).
Gold Level Partner
•
Ebenezer Avenue Elementary
Silver Level Partners
•
•
Ebinport Elementary
India Hook Elementary silver
Bronze Level Partners
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Children’s School at Sylvia Circle
Finley Road Elementary
Independence Elementary
Mount Holly Elementary
Northside Elementary School for the Arts
Oakdale Elementary School
Rosewood Elementary
Saluda Trail Middle
Sullivan Middle School
17
The Rock Hill Bike Club is a registered Current Community Friend of SRTS. Some schools in Rock Hill,
like Ebenezer Avenue Elementary, Ebinport Elementary, Rosewood Elementary, and Northside
Elementary School for the Arts have developed walkability assessments and travel plans that assess the
built environment around their campuses. In July 2014, Rosewood Elementary School became the first
school in Rock Hill to be awarded a SRTS grant. The grant, which was for the maximum of $400,000,
will be used to improve sidewalks and install signage and high visibility crosswalks around the school.
Construction is anticipated to begin in 2015.
Public Transit
Public transit has several roles within the transportation system. At the personal level, it provides mobility
for people who are unable to drive as well as a flexible and reliable option for those who prefer not to
drive. At a more strategic level, it is an important contributing factor to economic competitiveness,
reducing traffic congestion, favorably impacting air quality, and improving regional connectivity, among
many other important goals that affect our quality of life.
Rock Hill has attempted to offer fixed-route bus service in the past but these attempts have been
unsuccessful. The most recent service, operated by Pee Dee Regional Transportation Authority (PDRTA),
ended in 2001 after a four-year run. Low ridership, combined with a lack of routes/stops and poor
schedule maintenance, ultimately ended the service. The lack of density continues to make fixed-route
transit service unviable over the long term.
Currently the City offers commuter bus and demand response service. The City regularly monitors
ridership numbers and trip origination and destination to ensure that service keeps pace with demand. In
the summer of 2014, RFATS initiated a Transit Study to assess whether service modifications, expansion
of an existing service, and/or initiation of a new service is warranted within the RFATS Study Area.
RESULTS OF STUDY,.
82X Rock Hill Commuter Bus Service
The CATS 82X (otherwise known as the Rock Hill Express), is a commuter bus service which began
operating in 2001, providing residents with an alternative for getting from Downtown Rock Hill to the
Charlotte Transportation Center in uptown Charlotte (See Figure 3.1). This service operates Monday
through Friday during the morning and evening peak periods and includes four inbound and outbound
trips each day. This service has pickup locations in Downtown Rock Hill at the park-n-ride lot on White
Street as well as at Manchester Cinema and Baxter Village in Fort Mill.
Figure 3.1: CATS 82X Route
Source: CATS
18
Ridership grew 7 percent from 38,710 in FY10 to 41,552 in FY12, but then fell 6 percent to 39,026 in
FY14. 82X ridership, like most regional express bus route ridership, has been impacted by lower fuel
prices and the broader economic environment. However, ridership is high when compared to other
regional express bus routes in Concord and Gastonia.
York County Access
York County Access is the public transportation option for more localized transit needs within the City.
There are two types of service available – an Essential Services or basic mobility route and a Peak
Period or Ride-to-Side option. The Essential Services route is available Monday through Friday from
6:00am to 6:00pm and primarily serves trips to the doctor, pharmacy, grocery store or personal care
shopping. Trips must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance. The Peak Period option is also
available Monday through Friday, but operates from 5:30am to 9:00am and again from 3:30pm to
6:00pm. Trips for this service must be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance.
This service receives funding support from the Federal Transit Administration, the SCDOT Office of Public
Transit, fares collected by users of the service, as well as local support provided by the city – which
currently amounts to roughly $65,000 on an annual basis. Although the city contracts with the York
County Council on Aging to provide this service, the city maintains a comprehensive performance
monitoring program to ensure that service delivery and quality of experience is properly maintained.
In FY 2013/14, York County Access picked up an average of almost 1,100 passengers per month and
traveled roughly 7,600 miles for its Essential Service Route and an average of 677 passengers per month
traveling roughly 3,900 miles for its Ride-to-Work Service. Demand, which is expected to increase, is
highest to the medical facilities along Ebenezer Road, the Galleria Area, and destinations along major
arterials including Celanese Road, Cherry Road, Heckle Boulevard, and Albright Road.
Freight
Freight movement is a critical element of any advanced industrial economy, and the ease of freight
movement is one component of Rock Hill’s economic competitiveness for attracting and retaining
industry, manufacturing, warehousing and other light industrial functions. Freight movement also impacts
a region’s quality of life by ensuring that suitable routes to/from the highway or rail networks help heavy
truck traffic avoid established residential areas.
Highway freight and rail freight play complementary and sometimes competing roles in the freight
transportation system. The RFATS Study Area has strong highway and rail connections for freight,
including a major north-south interstate connecting Charlotte and Columbia and main lines of two Class I
railroads.
Highway Freight
Figure 3.2 compares the 2011 and 2040 forecast mode share of freight movements for South Carolina.
Statewide, the truck mode is expected to increase its share of freight traffic to over 84 percent, while
overall truck freight tonnage nearly doubles. Rail freight is also expected to increase in terms of tonnage,
while losing market share to trucks.
19
Figure 3.2: Mode Share of SC Freight Movement (Tons, in thousands)
Source: CDM Smith
Map 3.9 depicts the current highway freight traffic volumes in the RFATS Study area. As expected the
interstate highway is especially important as a freight conduit, connecting Rock Hill to the major regional
urban areas in Charlotte and Columbia as well as the major port in Charleston. It is anticipated that the
interstate and major arterial roadways will continue to play an important role in the movement of freight
traffic in the future.
Rail Freight
Map 3.10 shows the railroads in the City of Rock Hill and larger Planning Area. These include routes
owned by both Norfolk Southern (NS) and CSX (the two major railroads in the eastern US), as well as the
Lancaster and Chester Railroad.
The NS secondary main line from Charlotte to Chester and Columbia (known as the ‘R’ line, part of NS
Piedmont Division) passes through the Town of Fort Mill and Rock Hill, serving a number of industrial
customers, and includes a small switching yard in Rock Hill. The SCDOT Rail Right-Of-Way Inventory
identified this section as a potentially important line because it follows the SC 72 highway corridor.
Although it is a single-track line, it does have automatic block signaling and a relatively high density of
traffic.
The CSX line from Monroe, NC to Chester, SC passes through Catawba, as part of CSX’s mainline axis
from Hamlet, NC to Atlanta and New Orleans. This line has centralized traffic control and a high traffic
density. Norfolk Southern also operates a local line (the ‘SB’ line) that connects with the main ‘R’ line at
Rock Hill, extending west to Tirzah Road and east to meet the CSX line at Catawba. Also serving
Catawba is the independent Lancaster and Chester Railroad (L&C), a shortline (minor railroad).
20
Map 3.9: Highway Freight Traffic
Source: 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
21
Map 3.10: Railroads in the City and RFATS Study Area
Source: RFATS
22
Aviation
Both commercial and general aviation make distinct contributions to the transportation system, as well as
have additional impacts on the overall functionality of the transportation system. Aviation provides an
additional transportation option for moving people, goods, and services.
For example, commercial aviation allows citizens to travel domestically and internationally for business,
personal affairs or leisure. It should also be noted that commercial air freight operations represent an
effective means of delivering commercial goods to and from other regions. General aviation also
supports business travel within Rock Hill as well as provides opportunities for recreational flying.
Rock Hill-York County Airport
The Rock Hill-York County Airport is a “Gateway” reliever airport to Charlotte/Douglas International
Airport. About 37,000 aircraft operations occurred during FY2013/14. The Airport competes with other
reliever airports in the region, Charlotte Monroe Executive Airport and Concord Regional Airport, for
business. The Airport is working to increase operations in order to secure funding for an extension of the
runway. Airport development is guided by the Airport Master Plan. Planned projects to increase
operations include expansion of the parking apron, taxiway rehabilitation (construction), and drainage
work on the north end of the apron. See the Community Facilities Element for more details on the airport
and airport operations.
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT), just 20 miles north of the Rock Hill-York County Airport, is
the second most crowded major airport in the U.S. Passenger numbers are increasing more than any
other airport in the nation and the airport hit a record of 43.46 million travelers in 2013. As a result,
various expansion projects are currently underway and planned. Projects include construction of a new
hourly parking deck and rental car facility, a new entrance roadway, updated signage, construction of a
new intermodal facility, replacement of the existing baggage system, extension of Taxiway D South,
expansion of the west side terminal building, and construction of a second Business Valet parking deck.
According to the Airport Director, expansion projects at CLT will not threaten Rock Hill-York County
Airport airspace. Overall, growth at CLT ensures need for relief. Rock Hill’s position south of CLT makes
it an attractive location for those who want to do business in areas south of Charlotte.
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES
Rock Hill Committees
Rock Hill has several committees that review and make recommendations related to the transportation
system and support and promote alternative modes of transportation.
Rock Hill Traffic Commission
The Rock Hill Traffic Commission reviews and makes recommendations to the City Council on ways to
better manage local traffic issues, such as changes in the posted speed limit, improving pavement
markings, and the placement of traffic control devices (i.e., speed humps). Traffic Commission members
include City planning, public works, and utilities staff, as well as representatives from the Rock Hill Police
Department and the South Carolina Department of Transportation.
Trails & Greenways Advisory Committee
Rock Hill has a Trails & Greenways Advisory Committee, a subset of the Rock Hill Parks & Recreation
Commission, is charged with considering trails and greenways issues throughout the City. The Committee
has contributed to and/or endorsed many City initiatives including the Trails & Greenways Master Plan
(both 2003 original and 2008 update), the “Bicycle Friendly Community” designation, development of the
Rock Hill Bike Brochure, Carolina Thread Trail routing, increased wayfinding signage for trails, and park
and trail maintenance.
23
Rock Hill Bicycle & Pedestrian Task Force
The Rock Hill Bicycle & Pedestrian Task Force is a subcommittee of the Trails & Greenways Advisory
Committee and is charged with considering bicycle and pedestrian issues throughout the City. The
Committee has provided support in the “Bicycle Friendly Community” designation, development of the
Rock Hill Bike Brochure, the College Town Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, the York County bicycle
routes, Complete Streets training, and organized bicycle and pedestrian activities.
Rock Hill Bicycle Club
The Rock Hill Bicycle Club (RHBC) is a not for profit organization whose purpose is to promote the
personal enjoyment of bicycling by its members and the cycling public. The club has over 100 members
who are a mix of recreational riders, racers, and mountain bikers. The club arranges bike tours,
schedules rides and races, encourages bicycle commuting, and sponsors bicycle events.
RFATS Committees
The City has at least one member on multiple RFATS committees/teams that influence local
transportation policy and programs.
RFATS Policy Committee
The RFATS Policy Committee guides the RFATS planning process. The committee is made up of 12
voting members, three of which are from the City of Rock Hill. They are responsible for debating and
making policy decisions on key MPO actions and issues, including adoption of the long range
transportation plan (LRTP), transportation improvement program, annual planning work programs,
budget, and other policy documents.
RFATS Technical Team
The RFATS Technical Team provides guidance to the Policy Committee on operational, technical and
other relevant policy requirements associated with the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process.
The committee includes staff from the City of Rock Hill, Town of Fort Mill, City of Tega Cay, York County,
the Catawba Indian Nation and Lancaster County. Additionally, representatives from federal and state
agencies include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
Catawba Regional Council of Governments (CRCOG), and the South Carolina Department of
Transportation (SCDOT).
RFATS Citizens Advisory Committee
In 2007 the RFATS Policy Committee created a Citizens Advisory Committee to provide input and review
of the RFATS’ transportation planning process and activities. Members include representation from the
six RFATS communities and at-large members representing underserved populations. The City of Rock
Hill has one member on the committee.
TRANSPORTATION PLANS & STUDIES
Several transportation plans and studies have been done in the Planning Area, both initiated by the City
as well as other entities such as RFATS. The following is a summary of relevant plans and studies in the
study area:
2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LTRP)
The LRTP is a multimodal transportation plan that serves as the primary planning instrument regarding
the identification, prioritization, and funding of transportation improvements within Rock Hill and the
broader RFATS planning area. The current 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan was most recently
updated in June 2013.
24
Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study Congestion Management Plan
RFATS updates a Congestion Management Plan to identify congested locations, determine the causes of
congestion, identify strategies to address the causes and impacts of congestion, and track and evaluate
the impact of previously implemented congestion management strategies.
HOV/HOT/Managed Lanes Study
In 2007, the Charlotte region began studying corridors in the region to identify the most promising
corridors for “fast lane” facilities (high occupancy vehicle (HOV), high occupancy toll (HOT), and truckonly toll facilities) to help manage congestion during peak periods. I-77 South was studied in initial
phases, but was not determined to be a high priority facility and is no longer being studied.
I-77 Corridor Study
Rock Hill initiated a study in 2008 to explore the impact of future growth on the road network near I-77.
The project team included staff from the City of Rock Hill, York County, SCDOT, and Town of Fort Mill.
The team studied projected traffic demand and congestion levels and analyzed projects that were to be
constructed as part of planned development. They used this information to develop recommended
transportation projects for both the City and the larger region.
Projects identified in the plan have been incorporated into the LRTP as well as the Pennies for Progress
Program, or constructed as a part of the development approval process.
Dave Lyle Blvd Extension
The extension of Dave Lyle Boulevard has been a part of policy discussions in York and Lancaster
counties for almost two decades. The proposed project involves extending Dave Lyle Boulevard across
the Catawba River to US-521 in Lancaster County (see Map 3.11).
Map 3.11: Proposed Dave Lyle Boulevard Extension-2008 Revised Alternative
25
The expansion was first identified in the 1990’s as a significant opportunity to improve area roadway
capacity, traffic operations and regional connectivity within the City as well as the broader RFATS Study
Area. Although eliminated from York County’s Pennies for Progress Program in 1997, this project
continues to be recognized by the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank as an eligible project for
funding consideration as resources become available. Within the region, RFATS continues to reflect this
project in its planning documents – though it remains unfunded.
Area municipalities in both York and Lancaster counties believe that this project would be a notable
structural addition to the transportation network that would reduce traffic congestion on adjacent corridors
and provide a strategic link between US 521 and I-77. Given the strong growth pressures in both
counties and the expected continuation of this trend, economic studies have been completed assessing
the impact of this project – and grant funding has been sought through the Transportation Investments
Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Program. Unfortunately, with an estimated cost at $220 million,
an award of this size was not produced from this funding source. Looking ahead, funding for this project
will likely entail support from federal, state, and local sources.
RFATS Urban Area Transit Study
RFATS is currently undertaking an urbanized area transit study evaluating existing services, current and
projected population growth as well as employment centers within the City to determine how best to keep
pace with area transit needs. This study is an update to a 2004/2005 effort that recommended the
continuation of the CATS 82X route as well as the initiation of a demand response service (York County
Access) back in 2007. This study is expected to be completed in late December.
Regional Rapid Transit Plan
In 2007, the City of Rock Hill, York County, the City of Charlotte, the Charlotte Area Transit System
(CATS) and others completed a two-year study that analyzed alternatives for incorporating a rapid transit
option between Rock Hill-York County and the greater Charlotte region.
The locally preferred alternative that arose from the study was bus rapid transit (BRT) operating along the
Cherry Road (US-21) corridor to connect to the LYNX Light Rail Station in Pineville, NC. Disinvestment
along parts of Cherry Road and low overall densities prevent the corridor from supporting transit at this
time. The City has undertaken several efforts to revitalize the Cherry Road corridor including a market
feasibility study and development of six small area plans. In October 2014, the Planning and
Development Department combined these efforts in a revitalization strategy for the corridor. The plan,
adopted by City Council in December 2014, includes recommendations for increasing density and
intensity along the corridor.
Streetcar Feasibility Study
In late 2008 Rock Hill’s Economic Development Corporation established a project team to explore the
idea of a streetcar between Downtown and the Winthrop University/Cherry Road area. A feasibility study
for the streetcar was completed in January 2009. Although the streetcar is primarily an economic
development strategy to attract and grow knowledge economy jobs and businesses in Old Town, if built it
could also provide a transit option that connects key City destinations which could reduce local and
roadway congestion.
In 2008, the project was anticipated to cost $20 million and have operations and maintenance costs
around $1 million annually. The proposed streetcar route, shown in Map 3.12, is approximately 1.5 miles.
26
Map 3.12: Proposed Streetcar Route
Trails & Greenways Master Plan
In April 2008, the City updated its Trails & Greenways Master Plan (originally adopted in 2003). The
purpose of the update was to establish a comprehensive and interconnected network of pedestrian and
bicycle trails throughout the City and identify an implementation plan for creating that network. The plan
details where multi-purpose trails, greenway trails, and sidewalks are needed. When complete, the
network will account for approximately 10.0 miles of park trails, 43.2 miles of multi-purpose trails, 27.8
miles of greenway trails, 3.6 miles of bikeways, and 43.1 miles of sidewalks.
Although priority projects were identified, that list of projects has not been prioritized and there is no
dedicated funding or timelines associated with the projects identified in the Plan.
Existing and proposed trails and greenways are shown on Map 3.8.
College Town Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The City adopted the College Town Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in November 2012. Three City
Departments – Planning & Development, Economic & Urban Development, and Parks, Recreation, &
Tourism – worked with Alta Planning + Design and Winthrop University to develop the plan. This plan
grew out of the 2010 College Town Action Plan (CTAP) and was designed to enhance walking and biking
in the College Town Area. The plan assessed existing conditions, opportunities and constraints, and
developed recommendations for key corridors and intersections.
Since the plan was adopted almost one mile of bike lanes have been striped and shared lane markings or
“sharrows” have been placed on an additional two miles of roadway.
Carolina Thread Trail
Rock Hill has been a regional partner in the establishment of the Carolina Thread Trail (CTT) since 2007.
The CTT is a planned regional network of trails and greenways intended to link major destinations in 15
counties in both North and South Carolina.
City staff is part of a multi-jurisdictional steering committee which makes decisions on the routing and
development of the CTT in the York County region. York County adopted a CTT Plan in early 2009 and
the Rock Hill City Council endorsed a resolution of support for the CTT in March 2009.
27
In September 2009, the City’s first CTT segment was dedicated at the Manchester Meadows Park Trail.
Since 2009, four other trails have been dedicated including Northside Greenway, Tech Park Lakeshore
Trail, Hood Center Trail, and Piedmont Medical Center Trail.
The existing and proposed CTT routes through the Rock Hill 2020 Planning Area can be seen in Map
3.13.
Map 3.13: 2020 Planning Area-Proposed Carolina Thread Trail
28
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES
Transportation projects and improvements are very expensive. As a result, there are always more needs
(road widenings, intersection improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit) than there is
funding available. Because of cost, most communities rely on a variety of sources: local, state, federal,
and private to fund needed transportation improvements. Since the benefits and/or impacts of
transportation projects and improvements often transcend jurisdictional boundaries, and because state
and federal funding is generally limited, communities must work together to prioritize projects for funding.
The following funding sources have been used to fund transportation projects and improvements in the
2020 Planning Area.
SCDOT Guideshare
Federal funds distributed to the SCDOT are applied toward system upgrades in the state’s 11 MPO’s.
The funding level of each MPO is determined by the proportion of the MPO’s population to the state’s
urban population as determined by the US Census. That percentage is weighed against the statewide
funds available for system upgrades and results in the MPO’s Guideshare allocation. Currently, RFATS
receives an annual Guideshare of approximately $6 million. The funds are used to implement projects
identified in the LRTP.
Transportation Alternatives Program
The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) provides funds to expand transportation choices and
improve the overall transportation experience. This Program was established by MAP-21 by combining
the Transportation Enhancement, Recreation Trails, and Safe Routes to School programs. Funds can be
used for bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as streetscape improvements. RFATS only receives
about $110,000 annually for this program, which after a competitive application process, usually funds
one project in the study area annually. The City has successfully secured TAP funds in the past, one of
the most noteworthy projects being the Saluda Gateway.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Funds
CMAQ funds are available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet one or
more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (nonattainment areas). The Charlotte/Metrolina
Region (which includes RFATS) has been designated by EPA as a non-attainment area for ground level
ozone. The York County nonattainment area is currently classified as being in “marginal” violation and
RFATS receives about $3 million in funding annually. Projects that can be funded using CMAQ funds
include improved and/or expanded public transit options, traffic flow improvements and high-occupancy
vehicle lanes, shared-ride services, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and flexible work schedules. RFATS
regularly uses these funds for intersection improvements in the region. Over the last few years, CMAQ
funding has been committed to upgrading the operating conditions at the following intersections in the
City: (1) Mt Gallant / Celanese Road; (2) Riverview / Riverchase along Celanese Road at I-77; (3) Dave
Lyle Blvd / I-77; and (4) E. White Street / Albright Road.
The CMAQ program provides 80 percent of total eligible project costs and the local 20 percent share
must be provided from local, state, or other non-federal sources. The City uses general fund revenues to
provide the necessary match.
Pennies for Progress
Pennies for Progress is the name of the York County Capital Projects Sales and Use Tax Programs. The
Pennies for Progress Programs were initiated by York County to provide for a safer and more efficient
roadway system. Projects include road widenings, interchange improvements, and safety improvements.
Projects are chosen by a local Sales Tax Commission that represent the citizens of York County and are
then approved by York County voters. Citizens vote on a specific list of projects, and if the list is
approved, the projects are completed in the order that they appeared on the ballot. York County is the
first County in South Carolina to pass this type of sales tax to fund improvements for the roadway system.
29
Citizens of York County approved ‘Pennies for Progress’ programs in 1997, 2003, and 2011. Funding
available as a result of the program now exceeds $645 million. In total, 147 miles of highway
improvements, 97 miles of County gravel roads, 31 bridge projects, and 122 major intersections have
been improved through the program. Notably, less than one-third of these improvements were funded by
citizens of York County. Map 3.14 shows the Pennies for Progress projects completed and/or approved
in the Planning Area. The next referendum is anticipated to go before York County in 2017.
30
Map 3.14: Pennies for Progress Projects
31
Transit
Transit funding is provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the State Mass Transit
Funding (SMTF) program. Transit funding is used to support the operation of York County Access and
the CATS 82X Route, otherwise known as the Rock Hill Express.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA 5307 Program)
This funding source is known as the Section 5307 Urban Area Formula Program which provides funding
for planning, operating, and capital needs to support the provision of transit services. Funds under this
program are apportioned annually and remain available for four fiscal years (the year of apportionment
plus 3 additional years). Although subject to change, recent allocation amounts have been approximately
$1,200,000 annually.
State Mass Transit Funds
State Mass Transit Funds (SMTF) is a grant source managed by SCDOT that is designed to provide a
portion of the local match needed for local municipalities and/or other applicants who are serving the
general public to access federal transit funds (such as the FTA 5307 Small Urbanized Area Formula
Program). Eligible assistance categories generally include capital, administration, and operations. These
categories correspond to the federal program under which the SMTF funds are intended to match.
Contracted services for marketing programs, impact assessments, and other technical assistance related
to the improvement of existing services are considered eligible costs for SMTF funding as well. In recent
years, SMTF funding awards ranged from $120,000 to $180,000.
Community Transformation Grants
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsors a Community Transformation Grants
(CTG) program that supports and enables communities to design and implement programs and strategies
that promote health and prevent chronic diseases. The City was awarded $88,000 from the Healthy
South Carolina Initiative (HSCI) grant. Funding was used to mark bicycle routes and implement the
School PE Cycling Pilot.
The City was also awarded a $40,000 ACHIEVE grant from the CDC and National Recreational and Park
Association in 2011 to help promote physical activity and reduce tobacco use and poor nutrition through
environmental and policy changes. The money was used for bicycle route signage, a bicycle brochure,
workshops, and to purchase trail use counters to develop baseline data on use of bike lanes, trails, and
bike routes.
County Transportation Fund (C-Fund)
The C Program is a partnership between SCDOT and South Carolina counties to fund transportationrelated projects. State law authorizes the collection of 2.66 cents per gallon of the state gasoline tax to
implement countywide transportation projects as distributed to each of York County’s districts. C-Funds
can be applied to any type of roadway improvement within the public right-of-way on any jurisdictional
road including road repaving, graving road paving, sidewalk construction and maintenance, trail
construction, repairing potholes, and intersection improvements.
York County receives about $3.5 million a year in C-Funds. State law requires that 25 percent of the
money be assigned to State-maintained roads or projects and York County sets aside an additional 15
percent for economic development. To determine which projects will be funded with the remaining money,
York County solicits requests throughout the year from residents, SCDOT, York County Public Works,
and each municipality (including Rock Hill). Project requests are evaluated and prioritized and
recommendations are presented to the York County Council (acting as the County Transportation
Committee), for final approval. The majority of the funds in York County are spent on road repaving
projects. Between 2012-2015 about 11 miles of roads in Rock Hill have been reclaimed/resurfaced using
C-Funds for a cost of approximately $3.2 million.
32
Safe Routes to School
SCDOT offers grants to schools with a bronze SRTS partnership or higher. Schools can receive up to
$400,000 for preliminary engineering, right-of-way costs, and inspection and construction costs and
currently a match is not required. In 2014 the City partnered with Rosewood Elementary School to apply
for a grant. In July 2014, the school was awarded $400,000 to improve sidewalks and install signage and
high visibility crosswalks around the school. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2015.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts are a redevelopment tool that municipalities can use for
revitalization purposes. The additional tax money that is generated within a designated district as
property values rise helps pay for redevelopment. The City of Rock Hill has four TIF districts: Downtown,
Manchester, Red River, and Textile Corridor. Occasionally money generated in these districts has been
used to fund transportation improvements. Recent projects include Fountain Park street improvements
and construction of the Riverwalk collector road network.
General Fund (G-Fund)
The General Fund is the tax revenues that are not designated for any particular purpose. Although most
of the G-Fund pays for personnel and operations, a small percentage of G-Funds are allocated to capital
projects. General Funds have been used to provide the local match needed to qualify for CMAQ funding
and for asphalt paving resurfacing projects. Council has increased the budget for resurfacing projects
over time from $300,000 in FY11 to a proposed budget of $1 million in FY16. About 5 miles of City roads
have been reclaimed/resurfaced using City funds between 2012 and 2014.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The following funding sources have been explored by the City, but have not been utilized to date:
Transportation Infrastructure Bank
Local governments can apply for Transportation Infrastructure Bank (TIB) funds for projects of regional
significance (i.e. projects exceeding $100 million). Although Dave Lyle Boulevard has approved as an
eligible project, it has not been selected for funding.
TIGER Discretionary Grant Program
The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grant program,
provides a unique opportunity for the DOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to
achieve critical national objectives. Rock Hill has applied for funding to complete a reliever road system
for I-77 since the program’s inception in 2009, but has not been successful in securing funding to date.
Impact Fees
Under state law the City is allowed to charge impact fees for transportation, but to date the City has not
undertaken a transportation impact fee study or entertained the idea of collecting transportation impact
fees.
33
TRANSPORTATION “FOCUS” DOCUMENT
The City’s transportation system is comprised of a variety of facilities including roadways, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, public transit, rail, and aircraft. A variety of people, including citizens, businesses,
and commuters, all depend on these facilities operating safely and efficiently both now and in the future.
This document provides a summary of key transportation facts and figures which are explored in more
depth in the Existing Conditions document. It highlights the City’s strengths related to transportation
planning which will continue throughout the planning horizon for this plan. Most importantly, the
document identifies and details the three core transportation challenges facing the City. Before making
decisions about projects, initiatives, and funding, elected officials, staff, and the general public should ask
themselves how the project or initiative addresses one or more of the identified challenges.
The document ends with recommendations for addressing the core transportation challenges facing the
City. Planning staff recognizes that this list is not exhaustive, but believes implementation of these
recommendations will go a long way toward addressing the core challenges. Planning staff looks forward
to working with elected officials and staff from other departments to find additional ways to tackle the core
challenges.
KEY FACTS AND FIGURES
Roads







Transportation planning in the City is overseen by three organizations: the City of Rock Hill, the
Rock Hill/Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS), and the South Carolina Department of
Transportation (SCDOT). Ten different transportation plans and studies have been completed in
the Planning Area in the last decade.
SCDOT has the nation’s fourth largest highway system, but the fourth lowest gas tax for roadway
funding which creates funding gaps for maintenance. SCDOT owns the greatest length of streets
in the Planning Area at 46 percent.
According to 2013 peak hour LOS data from SCDOT, portions of Celanese Road, Cherry Road,
Dave Lyle Boulevard, Mt. Gallant Road, and Albright Road operate at a LOS D during peak hours
(with A being best and F being worst).
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), South Carolina had the
3rd highest fatality rate in the nation, the 2nd highest pedestrian fatality rate, and the 5th highest
bicycle fatality rate in 2011.
According to the 2009 South Carolina Traffic Collision Fact Book, York County ranked 7th in the
state in total collisions, 12th in fatal collisions, and 8th in injury collisions.
Between 2010 and 2013 two-thirds of traffic collisions in York County took place within Rock Hill,
but only 15 percent of the fatal collisions.
Four of the top 10 top intersections for crashes are on Celanese Road. Intersections with the
highest crash rates per volume of traffic include …….
Alternative Modes

The City has well developed sidewalk networks within Old Town, the Manchester/Galleria area,
Riverwalk, and areas north of downtown where the majority of new development has occurred.
About 22 miles of existing sidewalk in the City along eight routes are identified as integral to the
trail system in the Trails and Greenways Master Plan. The City budgets about $100,000 annually
for sidewalk maintenance, which equates to about ½ mile of sidewalk.





Many older developments were built before sidewalk requirements were in place, creating gaps in
the existing sidewalk network. Sidewalks are typically constructed when new development takes
place and can also be included in Pennies for Progress Projects. About 21 miles of new
sidewalks are identified as critical to the City’s trail network in the Trails and Greenways Master
Plan, about 1/3 of which have been constructed to date.
About 27 miles of greenway trails and 32 miles of multi-purpose trails are proposed in the Trails
and Greenways Master Plan. Since 2008, approximately 2.5 miles of the greenway trails and 2.1
miles of the multi-purpose trails have been constructed. The City typically allocates about
$100,000 annually for trail paving and construction (which is less than a quarter mile of trail
construction a year) and $50,000 a year for trail maintenance.
The City striped its first bicycle lanes and marked its first sharrows in 2013. In total, about 30
miles of bikeways (including bike lanes, signed routes, sharrows, and multi-purpose trails and
greenways) are available for use in Rock Hill.
Truck freight in the RFATS Study Area is expected to increase its share of freight traffic from 80
percent in 2011 to over 84 percent in 2040.
Rock Hill is home to the Rock Hill-York County Airport, a designated reliever airport to CharlotteDouglas International Airport, which lies 20 miles to the north.
Funding




Attempts at fixed-route bus service in Rock Hill have been unsuccessful in the past primarily due
to lack of density. The City currently offers commuter bus (CATS 82X) and demand response
service (York County Access) to meet transit needs. The City receives approximately $1.2 million
from the Federal Transit Administration and between $120,000 and $180,000 from SCDOT in
State Mass Transit Funds to operate these services. Rock Hill matches state funding for the
demand response service.
RFATS receives about $6 million in SCDOT Guideshare, $110,000 in Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP) funds, and $3 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds
annually for use throughout the RFATS Study Area.
The Pennies for Progress program has generated more than $645 million for York County’s
roadway system. In total, 147 miles of highway improvements, 97 miles of County gravel roads,
31 bridge projects, and 122 major intersections have been improved through the Pennies for
Progress program since its inception in 1997.
York County receives about $3.5 million annually in County Transportation Funds (C-Funds).
Between 2012-2014 about 11 miles of roads in Rock Hill were reclaimed/resurfaced using CFunds. The City has increased its resurfacing budget from $300,000 in FY11 to a proposed
budget of $1 million in FY16 in order to supplement C-Funds. About 5 miles of City roads have
been reclaimed/resurfaced using City funds between 2012 and 2014.
STRENGTHS
Coordination is a challenge for any organization, but coordinating transportation planning efforts is
something at which the City works hard. As a founding member of RFATS, the City has a long history of
coordination through the federal MPO process. The City also has representation on three RFATS’
committees and provides regular input into the development of RFATS’ plans including the Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Congestion Management Plan. The City regularly coordinates with the
County on supporting and advocating for Pennies for Progress and road repaving projects. It frequently
coordinates with SCDOT on improvements to state-owned facilities within the City and to secure funding
for needed transportation projects. The City coordinates with the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) to
secure funds for transit and regularly communicates with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and Catawba Regional Council of Governments (CRCOG) through the RFATS Technical Team.
The City also regularly involves citizens and elected officials in transportation planning processes. The
City established the Rock Hill Traffic Commission to hear concerns of local residents and has two citizens
on the RFATS Citizens Advisory Committee. The City also has a Trails and Greenway Advisory
Committee and Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force who consider trails, greenways, bicycle, and
pedestrian issues in the City. The City’s Transportation Manager organizes quarterly meetings of a
Transportation Planning Coordination Group (TPCG). The group meets with City Council every year to
discuss and prioritize future transportation projects. Rock Hill also actively works with community groups,
such as Eat Smart Move More York County (ESMMYC), the Rock Hill Bicycle Club, and South Carolina
Communities for Cycling (C4C) to leverage bicycle and pedestrian resources and opportunities.
The City proactively coordinates land use and transportation decisions. The Planning & Development
Department requires developments of a certain size and intensity to conduct a traffic impact analysis and
mitigate impacts.
Although the City still has a ways to go, Rock Hill has made great strides in increasing facilities for
alternative modes. A lot of the success can be attributed to the addition of progressive policies for new
development in the zoning ordinance. The City has incorporated complete streets policies like requiring
five foot sidewalks on both sides of most street types in most zoning districts and requiring bicycle lanes
on all new City arterial and collector streets. The ordinance also includes connectivity and trail
requirements, as well as site plan requirements for pedestrian connections from the sidewalk and
connectivity between parking lots.
Finally, the City regularly explores and reevaluates viable transit options. RFATS is currently updating
the 2004/2005 transit study and the study is anticipated to be complete by summer 2015.
CORE CHALLENGES
1.
Congestion
Traffic volumes have risen along most roadways in the 2020 Planning Area and volumes are only
anticipated to increase more over time. Traffic volumes are among the highest in the RFATS Study Area
along Celanese Road, where average annual daily traffic counts near I-77 in 2013 approached 40,000
vehicles per day (vpd).
While most area roads have an acceptable level of service (LOS) based on 24-hour vehicle traffic counts,
according to 2013 peak hour LOS data from SCDOT, many major roads have segments that become
heavily congested during peak hours including Celanese Road, Cherry Road, Dave Lyle Boulevard, Mt.
Gallant Road, and Albright Road. According to the RFATS Congestion Management Plan Update, eight
of the 10 roadway segments projected to have the highest P.M. peak congestion in the RFATS Study
Area in 2035 are in Rock Hill. Unfortunately a long-planned, parallel reliever route, including a bridge
over the Catawba River, was removed from the RFATS’ LRTP in 2012 and no alternative reliever route
has been identified.
Congested roads and intersections lead to idling which increases emissions. Although York County’s
nonattainment classification for ground-level ozone has improved from “moderate” violation to “marginal”
violation, the larger Charlotte/Metrolina Region (which includes York County) is in nonattainment which
has economic development and transportation impacts on the region.
In most cases, congestion is caused by intersections that operate over capacity. Although the City has
successfully improved many undersized, intersections through CMAQ funding, additional deficient
intersections remain.
With limited transit options and still-developing trail, sidewalk, and bicycle networks, residents do not have
a lot of mode choice outside of driving a private vehicle to get to and from work or run errands.
Additionally, older developments were not subject to connectivity requirements, and residents of
established neighborhoods often successfully protest against connections to new, adjacent
neighborhoods. The lack of connectivity forces drivers onto major arterials for local trips because
alternative routes are not available.
Land use decisions have also exacerbated congestion. Mixed uses are limited to downtown and
Riverwalk, and many housing developments, especially multi-family housing, are isolated from goods and
services except for access by car.
2.
Alternative Modes
The City has worked hard to improve the pedestrian environment and create an environment conducive
to bicyclists, but pedestrian and bicycle environments have not always been a priority. In many older
areas of the City, facilities are fragmented or absent. Due to the high costs of retrofitting streets and
challenges associated with securing right-of-way, Pennies for Progress projects are the primary tool used
to construct new roadway projects in the City. Historically, these projects have not usually included
dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities because political and public support was weak.
The City also does not have a formal plan for where street connections are needed or how they are
designed, which leaves these decisions to be negotiated during the development process. Although the
City has a plan for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in and around Winthrop University and
Downtown and a Trails and Greenways Master Plan that identifies key locations for new trails (including
sidewalks), there is no bicycle and pedestrian plan for the City as a whole or the larger Planning Area.
The City has had major success in adding new attractions like the Rock Hill Outdoor Center and Fountain
Park, but has not yet connected new and existing attractions by modes other than the automobile. In
many instances residents and visitors do not feel safe walking or biking because of issues with
aesthetics, lighting, wayfinding, and traffic calming.
Just as land use patterns contribute to congestion, they also detract from the feasibility of using
alternative modes. A lack of mixed use makes walking and biking for daily needs difficult.
One of the most frequent concerns heard from citizens is regarding the lack of public transportation in
Rock Hill. Previous attempts at fixed-route transit in the City have been unsuccessful mainly because the
City lacks the density needed to support transit services. Current commuter and demand response (diala-ride) services show a need, but ridership patterns justifying fixed routes have not yet emerged. A study
currently being completed by RFATS . . .
Historically Rock Hill School District Three did not construct sidewalks on school property, and in most
instances there is no sidewalk or bicycle network in areas surrounding schools, making it difficult and
often unsafe for students to walk or bike to school.
Sidewalks and trail construction is required with new development and sidewalks are often included in
Pennies for Progress projects. Outside of these channels, there is limited funding for new construction of
these facilities, making it difficult to expand the sidewalk network in older, developed areas or make
needed connections between major attractions in the City.
3. Maintenance
South Carolina has the nation’s fourth largest highway system, but also the nation’s fourth lowest gas tax
for roadway funding. As a result, there is limited state funding available for road maintenance. Since
SCDOT owns almost half of the roads in the Planning Area, Rock Hill feels the impacts associated with
the lack of funding. At times when issues become critical, the City makes needed improvements on stateowned roads, which reduces the funding available for maintenance on city-owned roads. Likewise, when
the City takes on improvements on state owned roads, SCDOT often holds the City responsible for future
maintenance.
Even outside of these circumstances, SCDOT has begun to transfer roads to
municipalities, mostly without any associated funding to cover maintenance costs. These transfers,
combined with the addition of new City owned facilities as the City grows, means that City maintenance
responsibilities continue to grow at a much faster rate than the funding available to cover the costs of the
maintenance.
Because of financial constraints, the City must often wait until a road is failing to undertake
improvements. In most cases the costs for the improvements at this point are much higher than if they
would have been addressed before the road reached a critical state. SCDOT and York County both have
a formal system in place for collecting data on the condition of state and county roads and prioritizing
roads for improvements, but Rock Hill does not. The City also does not have a formal system for
monitoring the condition of sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or trails or adequate funding source for making
needed improvements.
Finally, half of the identified locations with safety concerns in the RFATS study area are located in the
Planning Area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Congestion
 Develop a collector and arterial street plan to guide future street location and design.
 Annually provide information to RFATS to be factored into the Congestion Management
Plan Progress Report and support RFATS’ efforts to implement the plan.
 Retrofit existing site access and circulation to current standards during the
redevelopment process.
 Coordinate land use and transportation planning decisions to avoid increasing congestion
on roads within the Planning Area.
 Routinely collect traffic volume and turning movement count data at congested
intersections to track changes in intersection Level of Service (LOS).
 Consider instituting transportation impact fees to generate revenue needed to construct
roadways and roadway improvements to address deficiencies related to increased traffic
from new development and redevelopment.
2. Alternative Modes
 Develop and implement a city-wide bicycle and pedestrian plan that builds upon the
College Town Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Trails and Greenways Master Plan
and balances the needs of all user types.





3.
Identify and correct unsafe pedestrian conditions on existing City facilities (sidewalk
repairs, crosswalk retrofits, curb ramps at key intersections, SRTS improvements).
Adopt a future land use plan that mixes uses and increases density along identified
transit corridors.
Enhance the bicycle and pedestrian experience through improvements to aesthetics,
lighting, traffic calming, and wayfinding signage.
Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections between major City attractions including
Winthrop, downtown, parks and recreation areas, and shopping centers.
Advocate for sidewalk and trail construction either in conjunction with Pennies for
Progress roadway projects or as stand-alone Pennies projects on future Pennies
referendums.
Maintenance
 Expand the street resurfacing program.
 Initiate a formal system for assessing the condition of City roads and prioritizing roads for
improvements.
 Develop a plan for ongoing maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
 Develop a proactive system for road maintenance where improvements are undertaken
before a road is failing.
 Support York County in adding maintenance projects to the Pennies for Progress
program.
 Advocate to SCDOT for equitable funding with road transfers.
 Routinely monitor safety and accident data to identify needed safety improvements and
improve areas identified as having safety concerns.

Planning Commission Agenda 03-2015

Transcription

Similar documents

How Women ROCKED THE VOTE in Little Rock

Rock Hill- Saluda Street- Flyer TB.indd

Coonamessett Reservation

We Are One Voice!

My Brother, My Sister: Shannon Boodram Rob Hill, Sr.

Song List - Gator James Band

DNFT Sell Sheet

Stone Hill Flowering Pear L.E. COOKE CO

Sell Sheet - Rock Sake