m e m o r a n d u m to: re: a g e n d a

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT155 JOHNSTON STREET, P.O. BOX 11706 ROCK HILL, SC 29731-1706, 803-329-7080

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Rock Hill Planning Commission

FROM: Eric S. Hawkins, AICP, Planner III

RE: Meeting Agenda

DATE: October 3, 2018

The Rock Hill Planning Commission will hold its regularly scheduled monthly meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2018, 6:00 PM, City Hall Council Chambers, 155 Johnston Street. The public hearing portion of the meeting can be viewed online at http://www.cityofrockhill.com/livestream. Please feel free to call me at 803-329-8763 regarding any item on the following agenda. Thank you.

A G E N D A

Rock Hill Planning Commission October 9, 2018

Pledge of Allegiance

1. Approval of minutes of September 4, 2018, meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

2. Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2018-20 by Mid-Atlantic Commercial Properties to rezone approximately 1.8 acres at1705 Ebenezer Road and adjoining right-of-way from Neighborhood Commercial(NC) to Limited Commercial (LC). Tax parcel 593-05-01-004.*

3. Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2018-21 by Rock Hill City Council to rezone approximately 126.82 acres along Cel-River Road and Eden Terrace from Industrial Development (ID), Light Industrial (LI),Urban Development (UD), Business Development-III (BD-III), and ResidentialConservation-I (RC-I) in York County to Industry Heavy (IH), Industry General (IG),Single-Family Residential-3 (SF-3), and Office and Institutional (OI). The subjectproperties are proposed to be annexed into the City of Rock Hill. Tax parcels 662-00-00-002, 662-00-00-029, 662-00-00-033 & -034, 662-01-01-012 through -016,

Planning Commission Agenda October 9, 2018

662-01-01-019, 663-00-00-003, 663-00-00-004, 663-00-00-008, 663-00-00-009, 663-00-00-066, 663-00-00-067, 663-00-00-078, 663-00-00-081, 663-00-00-084, 664-00-00-035, 664-00-00-061, 665-00-00-104, 665-00-00-105, and 665-00-00-112.*

4. Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2018-22 by Rock Hill City Council to rezone approximately 82.24 acres on Commerce Drive from Industrial Development (ID) in York County to Industry General (IG) and Industry Heavy (IH). The subject properties are proposed to be annexed into the City of Rock Hill. Tax parcels 665-00-00-002, 665-00-00-098, 665-00-00-099, 665-00-00-100, 665-00-00-102, 665-00-00-103, 665-00-00-106, 665-00-00-114, 667-00-00-001, and 667-00-00-005.*

NEW BUSINESS

5. Consideration of a request by The Rains Group for Major Site Plan approval for Legion Collegiate Academy. (Plan # 20180777)**

6. Other Business.

7. Adjourn.

* The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council on these items.

Recommendations made at this meeting are tentatively scheduled for consideration by City Council on October 22. City Council agendas are posted online at www.cityofrockhill.com/councilagendas on the Friday prior to each meeting. Please contact Eric Hawkins at 803-329-8763 or [email protected] with any questions.

** The Planning Commission makes the final decision on these items.

Planning Commission Agenda ItemsCity of Rock Hill, SC

October 9, 2018Planning Commission

¯ Map Not Drawn To Scale

3

Dave Lyle

Mt. H

olly

McConnells

York

Main

Old York

Celanese

Mt Gallant

Cherry I-77

Albright

And

erso

n

Heckle

Indi

a H

ook

Sut

ton

Hw

y 21

Saluda

Ogden

I-77

Anderson

5

2Heckle

Legend

City Limits

River

Agenda Item#

4

Planning Commission City of Rock Hill, South Carolina September 4, 2018

A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held Tuesday, September 4, 2018, at 6:00 PM in City Council Chambers, City Hall, 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT Randy Graham, Duane Christopher, Shelly Goodner, Justin

Smith, Nathan Mallard, Keith Martens

MEMBERS ABSENT Gladys Robinson

STAFF PRESENT Eric Hawkins, Leah Youngblood, Bill Meyer, Janice Miller 1. Approval of minutes of the August 7, 2018, meeting.

Mr. Christopher made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 7, 2018, meeting. Mr. Smith seconded, and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0 (Robinson absent).

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

2. Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2018-17 by the Tuttle Company to amend the Master Plan-Commercial (MP-C) zoning upon approximately 26 acres located at 396, 378, 397, 343, 354, 348, 300, & 326 Technology Center Way. The proposed amendments would update the regulations for the University Center project (formerly known as the Bleachery and Knowledge Park), regarding the allowed land uses and the required parking. Tax parcels 598-11-01-001 through -009, and adjacent right-of-way.

Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report.

Mr. Graham asked for clarification that the craft breweries were allowed as a conditional use. Ms. Youngblood stated this was correct unless specifically excluded. She added craft breweries were a new use that had not existed when the original master plan was presented.

Mr. Smith asked about the specific number of parking spaces. Ms. Youngblood stated this number was similar to the uses originally considered but may change over time and would be reexamined as the development progressed.

Mr. Martens asked how the parking numbers could change if the uses were not known. Ms. Youngblood stated parking numbers were based on uses and it was difficult to tie down specific use types in this type of mixed-use development.

Mr. Martens asked how deviations would be handled. Ms. Youngblood stated the project was a public/private partnership and as the City had a say in the project, if less parking was needed to serve the site, fewer parking spaces would be built. Mr. Martens further asked what would happen if more were required. Ms. Youngblood stated more would be built.

Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 2

Mr. Smith asked if the parking numbers applied to the entire site. Ms. Youngblood stated they did.

Mr. Christopher asked if the parking would be fee-based. Ms. Youngblood stated different options were being explored.

Mr. Graham stated several concerns over the parking, noting specifically that at full development, the project would have 365,000 square feet of office space required 1460 parking spaces used daily. Adding additional 500 spaces for the proposed student housing made the number 1960, which would not account for the additional spaces required for other uses, such as the athletic facility and restaurants. Ms. Youngblood stated the project relied on parking experts who proposed the numbers presented.

Mr. Graham stated his concern the project would be underparked when fully developed and asked if a parking study could be required at the completion of a particular phase. Ms. Youngblood stated a study could be required but noted the City would be doing studies throughout construction as part of the development contract.

Mr. Smith asked if the number proposed was in order to just have a number listed. Ms. Youngblood stated the number was due to possible land uses and the ability to have those uses may affect the parking numbers, adding the number proposed was a target number meant to be adjusted as needed.

Mr. Mallard asked about the requirements for student housing. Ms. Youngblood stated the developer was best able to answer, adding the apartments were geared towards and seniors and students. There was further discussion regarding parking requirements for retail uses.

Mr. Graham asked if, once built out, the project would meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Youngblood stated they would meet the requirements of the master plan.

Mr. Mallard asked if bars were now a conditional use because the Zoning Ordinance changed. Ms. Youngblood explained the various types of bars and restaurants serving alcohol, adding that as changes were made this use was added to the master plan.

Mr. Smith asked how the 3000 square foot limit for bars was determined. Ms. Youngblood stated staff had taken a look at bars around the area and found that those with higher incidences were larger.

Mr. Mallard asked about the dancing/nightclub aspect. Ms. Youngblood stated because this was a mixed-use development, nightclubs could become a nuisance.

Mr. Wes Tuttle, 332 Hawks Creek Parkway, Fort Mill, representing the Tuttle Company was available to answer questions.

Mr. Graham stated his concern over adequate parking once the project was completed, that there may be an issue with density by 2021-2022. Mr. Tuttle stated in reference to the student housing, there were 500 beds proposed but only 125


parking spots would be for those units. He added he did not know the apartment numbers but those would only have so many assigned spots as well. He added there would be a bus hub for the City’s new bus line included in the project.

Mr. Smith asked if the parking spaces would be allocated to those particular projects. Mr. Tuttle stated they would be reserved.

Mr. Smith asked the number required for offices. Mr. Tuttle stated they figured 4 spaces for every 1000 square feet of office space, but would scale back the office square footage overall if required. He added the parking numbers were still fluid as development progressed.

Mr. Christopher asked if the parking garages could be built with additional floors. Mr. Tuttle stated if allowed by the City, they could go higher.

Mr. Christopher asked if the garages would be open to the public with a fee per hour or day. Mr. Tuttle stated the garages were to be operated and maintained by the City and that the developers would lease the reserved parking areas for residential uses from the City.

Mr. Graham reiterated his concern of approving without knowing what would be built and asked if a parking study could be required in 2020 as part of the approval. Mr. Meyer stated the parking studies were done by a firm that studied the downtown area as a whole, noting this particular use only required 3.2 spaces per 1000 square feet. He noted the City would be constantly reviewing the parking numbers based on proposed development throughout construction. He added the firm recommended 1500-1600 parking spaces for this project, so the additional 300 spaces included were a safety measure. He stated more parking studies would be done but they did not want to build more spaces than needed.

Mr. Graham asked how the parking numbers would change if, for example, Site E was sold to a developer and the City required additional parking, if the developer could balk at the requirement stating the master plan only required so many. Mr. Meyer stated he did not see how this would happen, especially in the light of this being a public/private partnership.

There was no further questions or comments.

Mr. Christopher presented the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the amendments to the Master Plan-Commercial as presented. Mr. Smith seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0 (Robinson absent).

3. Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition M-2018-19 by Amerco Real Estate Company to rezone approximately 10.75 acres at 2858 Heckle Boulevard and adjacent right-of-way from Business Development-III (BC-III) in York County to Commercial Industrial (CI). The subject property is proposed to be annexed into the City of Rock Hill. Tax parcel 544-00-00-011.

Mr. Hawkins presented the staff report.


Mr. Martens asked if the current county zoning would allow the proposed use. Mr. Hawkins stated it would.

Mr. Martens asked if the proposed zoning was similar to the current zoning. Mr. Hawkins stated Commercial Industrial zoning was comparable to the Business Development-III zoning.

Mr. Smith asked what triggered the annexation process. Mr. Hawkins stated the proposed development required the City’s utility services and as the property was contiguous, this started the annexation process.

Mr. David Pollock, 2727 N Central Avenue, Phoenix AZ, U-Haul International representative, provided brief details about the overall project, specifically noting that in addition to storage and truck rentals, the company provided other retail uses requiring up to 15 employees. He added the desire to clean up the area, especially around the railroad line in place, and additional landscaping. He noted the improvements in the U-Haul corporate architecture over the past several years, stating this project would meet all the City’s design standards.

Mr. Smith asked why this particular location. Mr. Pollock stated the company model was to be within 3-5 miles of their U-Haul locations in order to reduce vehicle road usage. He added the site had good access and several other self-storage facilities were located nearby so they could help each other.

Mr. Graham asked about the retail component of the business. Mr. Pollock stated the retail area consisted of boxes, packing supplies, hitches, tape, and propane services. He mentioned other components of the business including a screened outdoor storage area and U-Box long-term container storage/shipping.

Ms. Brenda Carpenter, 4671 Westwind Drive, spoke regarding the request, specifically stating there were enough storage facilities in the area. She asked why the property has to be annexed if a storage facility could already be built under the County zoning. Mr. Graham noted the project needs the City’s utility services.

Ms. Carpenter asked if the Snipes business was in the City or if the City could annex the Snipes property. Mr. Graham stated that property was in the county and could only be annexed if there is an existing annexation agreement on file with the City. Mr. Hawkins noted that there is no agreement on file for the Snipes property.

Ms. Carpenter asked if well and septic could be used and about the number of units on the site, required buffers and landscaping, and where she could find this information. Mr. Graham stated the applicant would have to submit site plans and include all this information before approval. Mr. Hawkins added the standards were available on the City’s website and that the project would have to provide adequate landscaping and buffers.

Ms. Carpenter noted the other storage facility clear cut the land prior to construction. Mr. Hawkins stated landscaping is required and will be added in the near future before they open.

Mr. Graham asked about uses in the Commercial Industrial zoning district. Mr. Hawkins stated this zoning allowed for light industry and some commercial uses.


Ms. Carpenter asked the zoning of the adjacent property to the east. Mr. Hawkins stated this property is zoned for heavier industrial uses. Ms. Carpenter asked if these properties were in the City. Mr. Hawkins stated they were.

In reference to Ms. Carpenter’s question about the well and septic, Mr. Pollock responded that they could have used septic but needed to have an adequate water service for fire protection. He added there would be very little traffic impact, approximately 33-58 trips per day.

There were no further questions or comments.

Mr. Christopher presented the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Commercial Industrial (CI) zoning as presented. Mrs. Goodner seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0 (Robinson absent).

4. Hold public hearing and consider a recommendation to City Council on petition T-2018-02 by Rock Hill City Council to amend or replace the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Rock Hill as follows:

Remove Article 1: General Provisions and replace it with Chapter 1: General Provisions in order to restructure and clarify the content;

Remove Article 2: Administration and replace it with Chapter 2: Administration in order to modify authority for review and processes associated with review of different types of zoning applications, particularly as they relate neighborhood meetings, certificates of appropriateness and hardship exemptions for historic properties, administrative adjustments, variances, appeals, and certificates for recording; and to modify the vested rights section;

Amend Chapter 3: Zoning Districts to clarify the role of the S.C. Aeronautics Commission in reviewing proposals for properties in the City’s Airport Overlay District and to move the Old Town map to this section;

Amend Chapter 4: Land Use: Primary Uses related to communications towers; outdoor areas for bars/teen clubs; separation for wholesale and warehouse (general), parcel services, and truck or freight terminal uses; indoor recreation uses; and hotel/motel uses;

Amend Chapter 5: Land Use: Accessory and Temporary Uses related to accessory structures; in-home day cares; and recreational vehicles;

Amend Chapter 6: Community Design Standards related to setbacks; garage areas and parking areas for single-family uses; driveway surface materials; the height of structures; and street trees;

Amend Chapter 7: Construction Standards for Subdivisions, Public Improvement, and Site Infrastructure related to stormwater management and erosion control;

Amend Chapter 8: Development Standards related to traffic impact studies, tree protection standards, landscaping standards, parking for industrial uses, and signs (particularly regarding the standards for flags, interstate signs, the use of neon in historic districts; and “now hiring” signs); and to


create standards for timbering;

Amend Chapter 9: Site and Building Design Standards related to the design standards for single-family residences; garage and carport design; outdoor areas for single-family attached uses; and alleys and parking for single-family attached and multi-family developments;

Remove Article 8: Nonconformities and replace it with Chapter 10: Nonconformities in order to modify sections pertaining to nonconforming uses, nonconforming structures, nonconforming lots, nonconforming signs, and site feature nonconformities;

Remove Article 9: Enforcement and replace it with Chapter 11: Enforcement in order to clarify code enforcement processes and penalties, particularly as they relate to refusal to issue permits, perform other types of inspections and issue certificates of occupancy, and also to add remedies related to signs, tree clearing violations, violations on historic properties, and stormwater maintenance violations;

Remove Article 10: Definitions; and

Update chapter names, section references, and definitions throughout.

HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES The replacement of the existing Historic Design Review Guidelines with an updated version. Changes are proposed throughout the document. The primary areas of proposed substantive change include the authority for review of modifications to historic properties, the processes and standards of review for the different types of applications, and the use of substitute materials to replace wood siding. This proposal also suggests the removal of specified properties from the Historic Overlay District; the actual rezonings to effectuate that change would take place later through a rezoning process if City Council decides to move forward with it.

Ms. Youngblood presented the staff report.

Mr. Graham asked the catalyst for changing the separation requirements. Ms. Youngblood stated the Legacy project had gone through most the approval process but was almost derailed when approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance was required.

Mr. Graham asked if the Board of Historic Review would still have the authority to review exterior color and landscaping. Ms. Youngblood stated these would only be reviewed as part of a larger project.

Mr. Graham asked if paint color was reviewed currently. Ms. Youngblood stated it was not, that normally staff was asked for advice regarding color but did not generally review.

Mr. Graham asked if there was a review process for paint color. Ms. Youngblood stated there was not, that the Zoning Ordinance required muted colors but there was no palette or permit for painting.


Mr. Smith asked the review process for wall art and signage. Ms. Youngblood stated the language of the Zoning Ordinance referred to what a sign consisted of, that an image on a wall unrelated to the products or services within the associated building or done by a nonprofit were considered art.

Mr. Smith asked about a particular image within the Downtown area (Dust Off Brewing) and asked the City’s jurisdiction in that matter. Ms. Youngblood stated if proposed as a sign it could be permitted as a sign.

Mr. Christopher asked for more information about the HardiPlank information provided within the historic guidelines and the Board of Historic Review approval process. Mr. Smith stated he has seen this dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Mallard asked about removing the use of neon in the Old Town area. Ms. Youngblood stated neon was not considered historic in the downtown area.

Ms. Lindsay Stuber, 427 Tyson’s Forest, Program Director with Historic Rock Hill, spoke in support of the Historic Design Review Guidelines amendments, stating Historic Rock Hill saw these changes were appropriate for the size of Rock Hill and had faith that staff made correct decisions within the historic districts.

Mr. Joe Sherrill, 538 East Main Street, representing East Town Neighborhood Association, stated the neighborhood had voted to oppose the proposed changes to the guidelines. He stated most of the residents had spent a number of years and money in working to preserve Rock Hill’s history. He noted the changes proposed were too broad and vague, and gave staff too much control. He added the subject of HardiPlank was contentious but wood siding was readily available. He noted historic buildings should be maintained and did not want East Town to look like Riverwalk.

Mr. Graham noted Mr. Sherrill’s objections were not confined to siding. Mr. Sherrill stated they were not, that he felt staff would have too much control, there would be no public notification, and the changes were too broad. He added he didn’t have issues with the guidelines in effect when he was on the Board of Historic Review.

Mr. Smith asked Ms. Youngblood if the current guidelines addressed HardiPlank. Ms. Youngblood stated they did not, that the request had to go to the Board of Historic Review and that it was a contentious issue. She added the East Town Neighborhood appeared to be divided over the issue and that only 7 people had attended the meeting where the vote to oppose had been held. She noted the inclusion of the topic was designed to create a compromise.

Mr. Russ Frase, owner of 334 North Confederate Avenue, spoke in opposition to the changes, noting the character of a house was important and provided his insight on how the character of the house located at 662 East Main Street had changed when HardiPlank had been installed with approval of the Board of Historic Review. He added wood manufacturers had come out with primed wood products in the same dimensions of original wood siding and stated historic property owners could always ask for help.

Mr. Smith noted, as an architect, he had to deal with this a lot. He noted there was a lack of education about particular products and while the effort should be to go back


with original materials but sometimes this can’t be done. He asked how the process would change. Ms. Youngblood stated as HardiPlank was not addressed, there were no standards to apply in this situation, but the goal was to apply materials that were as close in resemblance as possible. She added having the tier system would provide discretion as to who could request HardiPlank or engineered siding.

Mr. Christopher asked if the proof for replacement was placed on the applicant. Ms. Youngblood stated it was.

Mr. Martens asked the requirements for replacing siding on contributing properties. Ms. Youngblood stated this would be reviewed prior to installation but the owner wouldn’t have to prove significant deterioration.

Mr. Christopher asked Mr. Sherrill the number of members in the East Town Neighborhood Association. Mr. Sherrill stated there were over 100 and that all had received copies of the proposed changes.

Mr. John Miskelley, 131 North Confederate Avenue, spoke in opposition to the amendments, noting neon had been used on downtown buildings for a number of years and were historic. He added that a person buying a house in the historic districts knew the rules about what was required.

There was general discussion regarding the process.

Mr. Christopher presented the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the amendments as proposed. The motion failed due to a lack of a second.

Mr. Martens presented the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments with the exception of the Historic Design Review Guidelines, reasoning that the Zoning Ordinance articles and chapters were separate from the historic guidelines. Mr. Christopher seconded. Mr. Graham asked staff if the Commission could follow this process of separating the items for the vote. Ms. Youngblood stated they could.

Mr. Martens expressed concern that the Zoning Ordinance amendments having nothing to do with the historic guidelines would not be approved even if they had no effect on the historic amendments. Mr. Graham asked Mr. Martens to restate the motion.

Mr. Martens presented the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments with the exception of the Historic Design Review Guidelines. Mr. Christopher seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6-0 (Robinson absent).

Mr. Martens presented the motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Historic Design Review Guidelines as presented. Mr. Christopher seconded.

Mr. Smith asked if he could get some clarification from Ms. Stuber. With Mr. Graham’s approval, Mr. Smith asked if, in her experience, there had been a great issue with the process up to currently. Ms. Stuber stated the issue was there was no mention of HardiPlank in the guidelines at all which created confusion and was


contentious. She added Historic Rock Hill had faith in staff and that it really fell to educating the owners of historic properties.

Mr. Christopher asked if there were tax incentives for historic properties. Mrs. Miller explained there were tax incentives available at the local, state, and federal level, but that the incentives were dependent upon the owner following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation and could lose those incentives if the process was not followed. She added that staff worked with property owners in educating them about proper preservation methods.

Mr. Christopher noted that houses on the National Register listing have to have a strong burden of proof in order to replace the siding.

Mr. Graham called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0 (Robinson absent).

NEW BUSINESS

5. Other Business

Mr. Graham thanked staff for their work with Mr. Tom Roper’s retirement dinner.

6. Adjourn

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.

(insert aerial photo)

Staff Report to Planning Commission

M-2018-20Meeting Date: October 9, 2018

Petition by Mid-Atlantic Commercial Properties to rezone approximately 1.8 acres at 1705 Ebenezer Road from NC to LC.

Reason for Request: The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to facilitate thedevelopment of a new building for retail and restaurant use without restrictions on operating hours.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed LC zoning.

SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION

E

Case No. M-2018-20 Rezoning Analysis-Report to Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 9, 2018

Location: 1705 Ebenezer Road, Tax Parcel 593-05-01-004

Site Area: Approximately 1.8 acres (1.2 acre parcel plus 0.6 acres road right-of-way).

Request: Rezone property from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Limited Commercial (LC).

Proposed Development: Retail and Restaurant.

Applicant: Mid-Atlantic Commercial Properties (John Wilson) Charlotte, NC 704-909-4500

Owner: North Star Enterprises, LLC and Cherry Farms, LLC (Cathy R. Hicklin) Rock Hill, SC

Site Description The subject property is a former drug store location. It is located on the north side of the City at the corner of Herlong Avenue an Ebenezer Road. Surrounding uses include office, retail, and restaurants in commercial zoning districts.

Development Proposal The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to facilitate the development of a new building for retail and restaurant use without restrictions on operating hours. The existing building is planned to be demolished and replace with a new building in approximately the same location.

Existing Zoning District Summary Neighborhood Commercial (NC): The NC district is established and intended to provide for small-scale retail, service, and professional offices that provide goods and services to serve the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The district should not include establishments that attract traffic from areas of the City outside the neighborhood that is being served by the use. Non-residential uses in the NC district are limited to 10,000 square feet in area per use in an individual building. The district should typically be located at the intersection of two collector (residential or commercial) streets or a collector street and arterial/major collector street in close proximity to the residential neighborhood which these serve. The district is subject to development standards to ensure development is consistent with the neighborhood scale and form of the district, and compatible with surrounding uses through setbacks, height limitations, bulk, and other dimensional standards, connectivity requirements, controls on lighting, and site design. In addition, all non-residential development in the NC district must limit its public operating hours to between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Rezoning Analysis-Report to Planning Commission M-2018-20 Page 2

Proposed Zoning District Summary Limited Commercial (LC): The LC district is established as a mid-level intensity commercial district that allows a wider range of non-residential uses at increasing intensities than the NC district. The uses allowed in this district include a wide range of general retail, business, and service uses, as well as professional and business offices as allowed in the NC district. Uses in this district are intended to serve groups of neighborhoods instead of individual neighborhoods.

INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS

Transportation The property has frontage on Ebenezer Road (state-maintained minor arterial) and Herlong Avenue (state-maintained minor arterial). The site will be accessed from Herlong Avenue and through an access easement on the adjoining property from Ebenezer Road. There are sidewalks along both streets.

Historic traffic volumes in the area are shown below:

Street

Vehicles Per Day

2017 2012 2007 2002 Capacity*

Ebenezer Road 9,600 7,300 7,200 7,200 10,800

Herlong Avenue 21,500 21,300 25,000 20,700 29,200 *Capacity denotes Level of Service “C”.

Public Utilities All necessary utilities are available to the site.

RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC PLANS

Focus 2020 Comprehensive Plan The subject area is within the Employment Center character area that is associated with the hospital. Future development should cater more to people-oriented businesses and include some shopping, dining, and/or recreational opportunities.

Conclusion The proposed Limited Commercial zoning is generally consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Staff hereby certifies that the required public notification actions have been completed as follows:

Sept. 21: Rezoning notification signs posted on subject property.

Sept. 21: Rezoning notification postcards sent to 68 property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property.


Sept. 23: Planning Commission public hearing advertisement published in The

Herald.

Public Feedback No comments received to date.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff Assessment In the years since the Neighborhood Commercial zoning was established in this area, both Ebenezer Road and Herlong Avenue have been widened and a significant amount of development has taken place nearby. The property’s location at the intersection of two minor arterial roads with no adjoining residential makes it well suited for the proposed Limited Commercial zoning. The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.

Attachments

Rezoning Map

To see the applications submitted for this case, go to: www.cityofrockhill.com/PlanInfo.

Staff Contact: Eric S. Hawkins, AICP, Planner III [email protected] 803-329-8763

Zonin

g Data

Curre

nt:NC µ

Plann

ing &

Deve

lopme

ntDe

partm

ent

City o

f Roc

k Hill

10/09

/18

M-201

8-20

HERL

ONG A

VEBENEZER RD

VIAN C

T

DR FR

ANK G

ASTO

N BLV

D

MEDICAL PARK DRRO

SEDA

LE S

T

OIOINCNC

GCGC

OIOI

PUD

PUD

NONO

NONO

PUD

PUD NONO

NONO

GCGC

SF-3

SF-3

Lege

nd

Prop

osed

: LC

Neigh

borho

odCo

mmerc

ial (N

C)

Neigh

borho

od O

ffice (

NO)

Plann

ed U

nitDe

velop

ment

(PUD

)

Offic

e and

Insti

tution

al (O

I)

Gene

ralCo

mmerc

ial (G

C)

Subje

ct Pr

opert

y

Single

-Fam

ily-3 (

SF-3)

020

040

010

0Fe

et




Petition by Rock Hill City Council to annex and rezone approximately 126.82 acres along Cel-River Road and Eden Terrace from RC-I, BD-III, UD, LI, & ID in York County to SF-3, OI, IG, & IH.

Reason for Request: The annexation proposal involves the majority of the properties in anunincorporated enclave. Annexation of enclaves promotes greater efficiency in City services,ensures development and redevelopment is consistent with City zoning standards, and supportsstrategies identified in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning.


E


Location: 640, 707, 720, 739, 745, 751, 757, 780, 800, 800-119, 806, 808, & unaddressed parcel Cel-River Road; 558, 566, 800, and & unaddressed parcel Corporate Boulevard; 639, 641, 641, 643, 645, 647, 649, 651, 653, 657, 661, 667. 677, 2490, 2565, 2574, 2606, 2655, 2659, 2663, 2667, 2671, 2682, 2687, 2725, & unaddressed parcel Eden Terrace; and 618, 620, 622, 624, 626, & 628 Wilkerson Road, Tax Parcels 662-00-00-002, 662-00-00-029, 662-00-00-033 & -034, 662-01-01-012 through -016, 662-01-01-019, 663-00-00-003 & -004, 663-00-00-008 & -009, 663-00-00-066 & -067, 663-00-00-078, 663-00-00-081, 663-00-00-084, 664-00-00-035, 664-00-00-061, 664-00-00-065 & 066, 665-00-00-104 & -105, and 665-00-00-112.

Site Area: Approximately 126.82 acres.

Request: Annex property into the City and rezone from Industrial Development (ID), Light Industrial (LI), Urban Development (UD), Business Development-III (BD-III), and Residential Conservation-I (RC-I) in York County to Industry Heavy (IH), Industry General (IG), Single-Family Residential-3 (SF-3), and Office and Institutional (OI).

Applicant: Rock Hill City Council

Owners: Inchem Rock Hill, LLC (800 & 812 Cel-River Road, 2725 Eden Terrace Extension)

Gabriel Phenoxies, Inc. (808 Cel-River Road)

Cytec Carbon Fibers, LLC (806 Cel-River Road)

L & D Real Estate Holdings, LLC (780 Cel-River Road)

720 Cel, LLC (720 Cel-River Road)

PDM Real Estate, LLC (640 Cel-River Road)

Barbara P. Weaver, Trustee (707, 751, 757 Cel-River Road and un-addressed parcel 662-01-01-016)

Jerry L. Gillespie (745 Cel-River Road)

Edward Johnson Murdock, Jr. (739 Cel-River Road & 2565 Eden Terrace)

Edward Johnson & Maxine D Murdock, Trustees (Parcel 663-00-00-008, including 639-677 Cel-River Road, 2655-2671 Eden Terrace, & 618-628 Wilkerson Road; un-addressed parcel 663-00-00-009; & 2606 Eden Terrace)

Airgas Merchant Gases, LLC (2687 & 2682 Eden Terrace)

York County Natural Gas (2490 Eden Terrace)

Cross Road Baptist Church, Trustee (2574 Eden Terrace)

Joyce Atkins, LLC (566 Corporate Boulevard & un-addressed parcel 664-00-00-035)

Corporate Boulevard Properties, LLC (800 Corporate Boulevard)


Site Description The annexation area consists of twenty-six parcels, totaling approximately 126.82 acres. The area includes residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial uses along with one undeveloped parcel. It is located on the northeast side of the City along Cel-River Road and Eden Terrace. Surrounding uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and undeveloped property in residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts.

Proposal The annexation and rezoning proposal was sponsored by City Council at its September 10, 2018, meeting. The annexation is being undertaken pursuant to the 75 Percent Petition and Ordinance Method as outlined in South Carolina Code of Laws Section 5-3-150. This law provides a mechanism for municipalities to annex property when at least 75% of the freeholders in an area who also own at least 75% of the assessed valuation of real property in the area have signed annexation petitions. The City has received signed petitions from 75% of the freeholders who own 83% of the assessed value.

The annexation proposal involves the majority of the properties in an unincorporated enclave. Annexation of enclaves promotes greater efficiency in City services, ensures that development and redevelopment is consistent with City zoning standards, and supports strategies identified in the Comprehensive Plan. This particular enclave is in a rapidly developing area adjacent to Riverwalk and the newly widened Cel-River Road.

Existing Zoning Districts Summary Residential Conservation District I (RC-I)- The Residential Conservation I District is designed to preserve and protect the character of existing neighborhoods and subdivisions and to prohibit any use which would compromise or alter existing conditions and uses. Also, this district is intended to encourage residential in-filling and expansion of existing neighborhoods and subdivisions. Development standards and densities regulating development of the districts and permitted land uses are designed to reflect existing conditions and enhance the prospects of “like development.” Permitted uses include single-family dwellings, schools, horticulture and some agricultural interests, neighborhood and community parks, and churches.

Business Development District III (BD-III)- The Business Development III District (BD-III) is intended to provide for areas within the county where “large scale” commercial and business development may occur. This district is designed to support county-wide or regional shopping centers and business complexes of greater magnitude than permitted by the BD-I and BD-II Districts. This district is designed to accommodate a wide range of business and commercial uses, generally clustered for “cumulative attraction” and optimum accessibility. Permitted uses include personal service establishments, i.e. beauty shops; Laundromats; restaurants; convenience retail establishments, i.e. grocery stores; professional services, i.e. business or financial offices; commercial recreation establishments; churches, clinics, office buildings, educational institutions, commercial schools, research facilities, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, museums, motels, primary and secondary retail establishments, commercial parking lots, general business services, funeral homes, mini-warehouses, automobile service and repair shops.

Urban Development District (UD)- The Urban Development District is designed to permit in certain areas of the county maximum use flexibility in response to existing conditions and


characteristics existing at the adoption of zoning. It also recognizes areas existing prior to zoning which have been impacted by a variety of incompatible uses. Market and use flexibility mandates a need to protect existing development from the adversities of “mixed use.” The objective of this district is to maximize land use flexibility and minimize land use conflicts in the process. Permitted uses include single-family dwellings, schools, horticulture and agriculture interests, neighborhood and community parks, churches, duplexes, multi-family dwellings, child care centers, nursing homes, personal service establishments i.e. beauty shops; Laundromats; restaurants; convenience retail establishments i.e. grocery stores; professional services, i.e. business or financial offices; commercial recreation establishments i.e. game rooms; clinics, office buildings, educational institutions, commercial schools, research facilities, townhouses, museums, motels, primary and secondary retail establishments, commercial parking lots, general business services, funeral homes, mini-warehouses, automobile service and repair shops, agriculture operations, cemeteries, churches, community centers, equestrian operations, mining operations, mobile homes on individual lots, outdoor recreation facilities, roadside stands, schools, utilities, manufacturing uses and services, and warehousing establishments.

Light Industrial District (LI)- The intent of the Light Industrial District is to create and protect industrial areas for light manufacturing and the distribution of products at wholesale. The standards established for this district are designed to promote sound and permanent light industrial development and also to protect nearby residential areas from undesirable aspects of heavy manufacturing. Whenever possible, this district should be separate from residential districts by natural or structural boundaries such as drainage channels, sharp breaks in topography, strips of vegetation, traffic arteries, and similar features. Permitted uses include Animal hospitals and veterinarian clinics; keeping or raising of Animals; Automobile and boat service, repair and customization, Broadcasting stations, Car washes and detail shops, Churches, Commercial recreation, General farming, Greenhouses, Kennels; Light industrial uses, Manufacturing facilities, Mining, Outdoor recreation, Professional uses, Retail sales when they comprise less than 50% of the total business operation, Schools, roadside stands, Transportation services and facilities, Warehousing, wholesale and distribution establishments.

Industrial Development District (ID)- The Industrial Development District (ID) is designed to recognize and protect one of the county’s greatest assets - its industry. Too often, it is infringed upon and “boxed in” by incompatible development, and sites with industrial potential lie unprotected from smaller scale uses. This district is designed to improve this situation by protecting certain areas with industrial potential for future industrial use and by buffering industrial uses from incompatible development. In the case of undeveloped property, the purpose of this district is not to usurp the development rights of property owners in anticipation of industrial development, but to allow the continuation of agricultural activity as an interim use; one which does not commit the land to higher intensity use and subsequently negate the prospects of industrial development. Permitted uses include animal hospitals and veterinarian clinics, keeping or raising of animals, agriculture operations, cemeteries, churches, indoor commercial recreation, community centers, equestrian operations, mining operations, outdoor recreation facilities, roadside stands, schools, utilities, manufacturing uses and services, and warehousing establishments.

Proposed Zoning Districts Summary Single-Family Residential 3 (SF-3): This residential district is established to primarily provide for single-family detached residential development. A few complementary uses customarily found in residential zoning districts, such as religious institutions, may also be


allowed. The minimum lot size for single-family residential development is 14,000 square feet.

Office and Institutional (OI): The OI district is established to provide a wide variety of professional and business offices and institutions proximate to residential and the more intense business districts so as to satisfy the City’s demand for services. These regulations are designed to encourage the formation and continuance of a quiet, compatible, and uncongested environment for offices intermingled with residential and institutional uses.

Industry General (IG): The IG District is established and intended to provide lands for light and general industrial uses that can be operated in a relatively clean and quiet manner and that will not be obnoxious to adjacent residential or business districts. Some commercial uses are allowed, but are considered incidental to the predominantly light industrial nature of the district. Areas of Industry General zoning should contain at least 10 acres, although individual parcels within the area must only meet the minimum lot size as shown in Chapter 6: Community Design Standards.

Industry Heavy (IH): The IH District is established and intended to primarily provide lands for industrial uses that have high impacts to neighboring properties. Areas of Industry Heavy zoning should contain at least 10 acres, although individual parcels within the area must only meet the minimum lot size as shown in Chapter 6: Community Design Standards.

Previous Annexation Cases in the Area The Corporate Boulevard PUD property was annexed in 2006, the Riverwalk property was annexed in 2008, and the property at 570 Corporate Boulevard was annexed in August of this year.


Focus 2020 Comprehensive Plan The subject area is within the Community Commercial and Employment Center character areas. Community Commercial areas are located on major thoroughfares and at key intersections and primarily contain multi-tenant and standalone commercial buildings. Employment Center areas are located near major transportation corridors and a mix of office, industrial, and undeveloped land, which contain a mixture of people and product-oriented businesses.

Conclusion The proposed zoning is consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map and compatible with surrounding uses and development patterns.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT




Sept. 23: Planning Commission public hearing advertisement published in The Herald.


As required by state law for this method of annexation, City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposal at its October 22, 2018, meeting. Notice of Council’s hearing was published in The Herald on September 21, 2018.

Public Feedback Eddie Murdock (property owner) has requested Multi-Family Residential (MFR) zoning for 2565 Eden Terrace. See attached e-mail.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff Assessment In regards to Mr. Murdock’s request for multi-family zoning for 2565 Eden Terrace, staff does not recommend this change to the proposed zoning. This location does not meet the City’s criteria for multi-family zoning. This zoning should only be applied to property in areas with an existing or emerging walkable environment and nearby shopping/services. Considering the nearby uses and the property’s visibility from I-77, it is better suited for industrial and commercial uses.

The proposed zoning is consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map and is compatible with the existing and surrounding development.

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning.

Attachments

Annexation Map Rezoning Map E-mail from Eddie Murdock dated July 10, 2018.



Zonin

g Data

Curre

nt:ID

, UD,

RC-

I, BD-

III, L

I(Yo

rk Co

unty) µ

Plann

ing &

Dev

elopm

ent

Depa

rtmen

tCit

y of R

ock H

ill10

/09/18M-

2018-

21

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ID

RC-II

ID

LIBD

-III UD

ID

UD

RC-I

UD

UD

UD

BD-III

LI

BD-III

LI

RD-I

BD-I

BD-III

BD-III

BD-III

BD-III

ID

UD

BD-III

ID

BD-III

UD

RC-I

RC-I

UD

UD

UD UD

EDEN

TER

CEL-RIVER RD

CHERRY RD

RIVERVIEW RD

CORPORATE BLVD

I-77 NB COLL ON 82 RAMP

EDEN TERRACE EXT

HERR

ONS

FERR

Y RD

DUNKINS FERRY RD

I-77 SB ON 82A RAMP

CELANESE RD

PATRIOT PKWY

PARAGON WAYCARHART CIR

I-77 SB OFF 82A-B RAMP

TWIN

WILL

OW D

R

GCGC

MP-

CM

P-C

IGIG

MP-

BIP

MP-

BIP

PUD

PUD

MP-

RM

P-R

CCCC

CCCC

IGIG

IBIB

PUD

PUD

MF-

15M

F-15

Lege

nd

Prop

osed

: IG

, IH, O

I, SF-

3

Plann

ed U

nitDe

velop

ment

(PUD

)

Maste

r Plan

ned-

Comm

ercial

(MP-

C)

Gene

ralCo

mmerc

ial (G

C)Co

mmun

ityCo

mmerc

ial (C

C)

Indus

try B

usine

ss (IB

)

Indus

try G

enera

l (IG)

Maste

r Plan

ned-

Resid

entia

l (MP-

R)

Maste

r Plan

ned-

Busin

ess I

nd Pa

rk (M

P-BI

P)

060

01,2

0030

0Fe

et

Prop

osed

IH Zo

ning

Prop

osed

IG Zo

ning

Prop

osed

SF-3

Zonin

gPr

opos

ed O

I Zon

ing

From: Eddie Murdock <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 2:16 PM To: Boyce, Alex <[email protected]> Subject: UD to Multi Family Alex, I have signed the documents and I am also requesting my property to be zoned Multi Family when the city takes it in. Thanks, Eddie Murdock




Petition by Rock Hill City Council to rezone approximately 82.24 acres on Commerce Drive from ID in York County to IG and IH.

Reason for Request: The annexation proposal involves a significant portion of the properties inan unincorporated enclave. Annexation of enclaves promotes greater efficiency in City services,ensures development and redevelopment is consistent with City zoning standards, and supportsstrategies identified in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning.


E


Location: 2471, 2515, 2555, 2601, 2651, 2690, 2724, 2751, 2805, 2810, 2822, 2826, 2846, & 2850 Commerce Drive, Tax Parcels 665-00-00-002, 665-00-00-098 to -100, 665-00-00-102 & -103, 665-00-00-106, 665-00-00-114, 667-00-00-001, & 667-00-00-005.

Site Area: Approximately 82.24 acres.

Request: Annex property into the City and rezone from Industrial Development (ID) in York County to Industry General (IG) and Industry Heavy (IH).

Applicant: Rock Hill City Council

Owners: Carolina Champion Investments, LLC (2850/2846 Commerce Drive)

Dofly Investments, LLC (2810 Commerce Drive)

Stag Rock Hill 2, LLC (2751 & 2805 Commerce Drive)

Commerce Drive II, LLC (2724 Commerce Drive)

WGT Properties, LLC (2690 Commerce Drive)

Commerce Drive NC, LLC (2651 Commerce Drive)

Commerce Drive III, LLC (2601 Commerce Drive)

Sentury Reagents, Inc. (2515 Commerce Drive)

JHP Real Estate, LLC (2495 Commerce Drive)

Site Description The annexation area is located on the east side of the City along Commerce Drive, just off of Red River Road, and consists of ten parcels totaling approximately 82.24 acres. Eight of the parcels are developed with industrial buildings (manufacturing, warehouses, and chemical plants) and two are under development. Surrounding uses include industrial and undeveloped property in industrial and Master Plan zoning districts.

Proposal The annexation and rezoning proposal was sponsored by City Council at their September 10, 2018, meeting. The annexation is being undertaken pursuant to the 75 Percent Petition and Ordinance Method as outlined in South Carolina Code of Laws Section 5-3-150. This law provides a mechanism for municipalities to annex property when at least 75% of the freeholders in an area who also own at least 75% of the assessed valuation of real property in the area have signed annexation petitions. The City has received signed petitions from 78% of the freeholders who own 84% of the assessed value.

The annexation proposal involves a significant portion of the properties in an unincorporated enclave. Annexation of enclaves promotes greater efficiency in City services, ensures development and redevelopment is consistent with City zoning standards, and supports strategies identified in the Comprehensive Plan.


Existing Zoning District Summary Industrial Development District (ID)- The Industrial Development District (ID) is designed to recognize and protect one of the county’s greatest assets - its industry. Too often, it is infringed upon and “boxed in” by incompatible development, and sites with industrial potential lie unprotected from smaller scale uses. This district is designed to improve this situation by protecting certain areas with industrial potential for future industrial use and by buffering industrial uses from incompatible development. In the case of undeveloped property, the purpose of this district is not to usurp the development rights of property owners in anticipation of industrial development, but to allow the continuation of agricultural activity as an interim use; one which does not commit the land to higher intensity use and subsequently negate the prospects of industrial development. Permitted uses include animal hospitals and veterinarian clinics, keeping or raising of animals, agriculture operations, cemeteries, churches, indoor commercial recreation, community centers, equestrian operations, mining operations, outdoor recreation facilities, roadside stands, schools, utilities, manufacturing uses and services, and warehousing establishments.

Proposed Zoning District Summary Industry General (IG): The IG District is established and intended to provide lands for light and general industrial uses that can be operated in a relatively clean and quiet manner and that will not be obnoxious to adjacent residential or business districts. Some commercial uses are allowed, but are considered incidental to the predominantly light industrial nature of the district. Areas of Industry General zoning should contain at least 10 acres, although individual parcels within the area must only meet the minimum lot size as shown in Chapter 6: Community Design Standards.

Industry Heavy (IH): The IH District is established and intended to primarily provide lands for industrial uses that have high impacts to neighboring properties. Areas of Industry Heavy zoning should contain at least 10 acres, although individual parcels within the area must only meet the minimum lot size as shown in Chapter 6: Community Design Standards.

Previous Annexation Cases in the Area The property to the south, behind Galleria Mall, was annexed in 1988. The Riverwalk property to the north and the City-owned property east of Red River Road were annexed in 2008.


Focus 2020 Comprehensive Plan The subject area is within the Employment Center character area. These areas are located near major transportation corridors and a mix of office, industrial, and undeveloped land, which contain a mixture of people and product-oriented businesses.

Conclusion The proposed zoning is generally consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map and compatible with surrounding uses and development patterns.


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT




Sept. 23: Planning Commission public hearing advertisement published in The Herald.

As required by state law for this method of annexation, City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposal at their October 22, 2018, meeting. Notice of Council’s hearing was published in The Herald on September 21, 2018.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff Assessment The proposed zoning is consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map and is compatible with the existing and surrounding development.

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed Industry General (IG) and Industry Heavy (IH) zoning.

Attachments

Annexation Map Rezoning Map



Map # Tax Parcel Owner Name1 6650000098 CAROLINA CHAMPION INVESTMENTS LLC2 6650000114 DOFLY INVESTMENTS LLC3 6650000106 STAG ROCK HILL 2 LLC % STAG INDUSTRIAL4 6650000002 STAG ROCK HILL 2 LLC % STAG INDUSTRIAL5 6650000099 COMMERCE DRIVE II LLC/ROCK HILL COMMERCE CENTER LLC6 6650000100 WGT PROPERTIES LLC7 6650000102 COMMERCE DRIVE NC LLC8 6650000103 COMMERCE DRIVE III LLC9 6670000001 SENTURY REAGENTS INC

10 6670000005 JHP REAL ESTATE LLC

Map # Tax Parcel Owner Name11 6650000001 KANAWHA LAND COMPANY % R W NORMAN12 6620701132 GREENS OF ROCK HILL LLC13 6620701167 ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC14 6650000094 RANDOLPH YARNS INC15 6620701101 CITY OF ROCK HILL SC16 6620701099 CITY OF ROCK HILL SC

ANNEXATION PROPERTY OWNERS

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS

Zonin

g Data

Curre

nt:ID

(York

Coun

ty)

µPla

nning

& D

evelo

pmen

tDe

partm

ent

City o

f Roc

k Hill

10/09

/18

M-20

18-22

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ID

ID

ID

ID

ID

ID

RC-I

RC-I

RC-I

ID

RC-II

RC-II

RC-I

RC-II

RC-II

ID

UD

RC-II

RC-II

RC-II

COMMERCE DR

PARAGON WAY

RED R

IVER R

D

LYNDERBORO ST

GALL

ERIA

BLVD

SEBRING DR

CATA

WBA RI

VER T

R

MP-

BIP

MP-

BIP

MP-

CM

P-C

IGIG

GCGC

MP-

RM

P-R

IHIH

MF-

15M

F-15

Lege

nd

Prop

osed

: IG

, IH

Maste

r Plan

ned-

Comm

ercial

(MP-

C)

Indus

try H

eavy

(IH)

Indus

try G

enera

l (IG)

OUTS

IDE C

ITY

OUTSIDE CITY

Maste

r Plan

ned-

Resid

entia

l (MP-

R)

Maste

r Plan

ned-

Busin

ess I

nd Pa

rk (M

P-BI

P)

060

01,2

0030

0Fe

et

Prop

osed

IH Zo

ning

Prop

osed

IG Zo

ning

Planning Commission

Staff Report

October 9, 2018 ~ Agenda Item #5

PROJECT NAME: Legion Collegiate Academy

PLAN TYPE: Major Site Plan

PLAN NUMBER: 20181223

TAX MAP NUMBERs: 602-07-01-001 & -044

LOCATION: 1030 & 1070 Mt Holly Road

PROPERTY OWNER: First Tennessee Bank National Association

PROJECT CONTACT: Legion Collegiate Academy 1648 Periwinkle Way, Suite D Sanibel FL 33957 239.472.1323

Land Use Information Type: Public Charter School Current Zoning: LC, SF-A & SF-5 Proposed Zoning: OI (pending second reading on Oct. 22) Land Area: 47.23 +/-

Background The property is located along Mt. Holly Road, south of the Saluda/Albright intersection. The property is currently vacant and wooded. The applicant would like to develop a Public Charter High School with associated practice athletic fields.

Dev. Information Buildings: One Floor Area: 47,444 square feet Other: The site plan shows a baseball field, softball field, and football practice fields. Note that the football fields will be for practice only. All games will be played off site.

Parking Required: 103 spaces (1 per classroom + 1 per 5 students) Proposed: 137 spaces

Employee and visitor parking will be located in the front of the building, while student parking will be located in the lots to the rear.

Streets No new public streets are proposed.

Pedestrian Access Sidewalks are proposed throughout the parking areas and from the main entrances. The proposed sidewalks will connect to the existing sidewalk network along Mt. Holly Road.

Traffic Impact A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted and road improvements are recommended at the site access drive which will align opposite Glenarden Drive. These suggested improvements include physical roadway widening by adding

Legion Collegiate Academy October 9, 2018 Page 2

T:\Planning\DEVSVC\Working Files\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\2- PC\2018\2018-PC10-October\Legion Collegiate Academy - MSP\Staff Report - Legion Collegiate Academy.doc

a right-turn lane on Mt Holly Road at the site access as well as modifications to the Glenarden Drive approach to formally provide two lanes approaching Mt Holly Road.

After reviewing the TIA, staff has additional comments. The TIA report and staff comments are attached.

Env. Sensitivity The site plan shows some existing wetlands that may be located on the property. A 60-foot wetland buffer has been shown on the plan, and would impact the future practice football field, however no other physical improvements are shown within the 60-foot wetland buffer.

Landscaping The perimeter of the site has 50-foot buffers adjacent to the Single family uses, and a 30-foot buffer yard along Mt. Holly Road. These buffers are intended to be tree save areas and areas for additional plantings.

Lighting The proposed parking areas will have exterior lighting, which will be required to meet city standards for parking lot lighting. No lighting is proposed for the athletic fields at this time.

Design Standards No building renderings or signage has been submitted at this time, however the proposed building, and any exterior signage, will be required to meet all non-residential building design standards in the Rock Hill Zoning Ordinance.

SPECIAL NOTES: There are outstanding staff comments, however they are editorial in nature and should not significantly alter the layout of the site plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends approval of the Major Site Plan, subject to staff comments.

ATTACHMENTS: Major Site Plan Plan Review Comments Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Staff Comments - TIA

Staff Contact: Dennis Fields Planner II [email protected] 803-329-5687

Legion Collegiate Academy - Plan Review Comments P. 1 of 2 Review of: Major Site Plan Status: Not Approved Project: Legion Collegiate Academy Plan # 20181223 Review Comments Inspections: Conditional 1. Details consisting of but not limited to Fire apparatus access, Fire hydrant and Fire Department

Connection type and location, accessibility, Knox Box location, first floor elevation relative to the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer, Grease interceptor type and location or other wastewater system pretreatment requirements, retaining wall locations/structures, basic building code compliance items that surface prior to building plan submission etc. will be reviewed at the Civil Plan review phase.

2. NOTE: The State of South Carolina has adopted the 2017 Edition of ICC-A117.1 ( Standards for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities). The Dimensions for most accessible route and path of travel features have been expanded.

Zoning: Not Approved 1. Bicycle rack locations will be required near the main entrances to the building. 2. A pedestrian zone, likely in the plaza area to the front of the building, is required with amenities such

as benches, fountain or public art. 3. Where pedestrian paths cross an internal drive aisle, a contrasting color or material is required to

denote the pedestrian crossing.an This can be achieved with stamped asphalt, however simple pavement striping does not meet this requirement.

4. An intermittent parking lot island will be required in the employee parking lot, since the span of parking spaces exceeds 15 in a row.

5. A trash enclosure must be provided for exterior dumpsters. This must be in an appropriate location, for circulation for a trash truck. I have attached the City Standard dumpster pad detail.

6. This item requires Planning Commission approval of a Major Site Plan. The item has been scheduled for the October 9th Planning Commission meeting.

Infrastructure-Roadway: Conditional 1. Site layout and functionality must be approved through SCDOT/OSF. 2. SCDOT must approve entrance and decel lane improvements. 3. Permission to do work within AT&T easement must be obtained. 4. Combination plat will be required. Infrastructure-Water & Sewer: Not Approved 1. The water main needs to be located along the access road and should include a loop up to Cedar Post

Lane per Utilities. There is room to locate the water main either within the proposed access or between the access and the practice fields within the grass.

2. Backflow should be located within the building. 3. Sewer should tie to an existing manhole if feasible.

Infrastructure-Stormwater: Conditional 1. Stormwater management for 2, 10, 25, and 100 year 6 hour storms plus water quality will be required. 2. Project has local floodplain that should be shown on the site plan. 3. Are the wetland delineation and associated buffers current? If so, they would preclude the construction

of the future practice facility unless Corp permitting was obtained. All grading and disturbance must be outside of the wetlands buffer.

Utilities-Electrical: Not Approved 1. No more than 10% slope across easement. 2. No structures allowed in easement. Any variances must be approved by Encroachment Permit

submission. 3. No trees are allowed in utility easement. Shrubbery is allowed but must maintain required clearances.

Legion Collegiate Academy - Plan Review Comments P. 2 of 2 4. Submit proposed transformer location. Transformer must be on level ground 10' from any above

ground structure, 5'from any below ground structure, within 10' of paved access point, and 5' behind curbing or have protective bollards installed as needed.

5. Civil Construction Drawings must show conduit crossings for power and communication lines. The conduit must be schedule 40 PVC Gray Pipe. The conduits must extend beyond the road ROW & into the electrical easement on both sides of the road, and include conduit sizes, quantities, & depths. Coordinate with the City's assigned project engineer and Comporium's Engineering Department at 803 326 6082. A note must be placed on the plans indicating that the developer will provide and install the conduit crossings.

6. Submit proposed meter locations. 7. Existing electric utilities must be located and shown on the encroachment permit drawings. 8. Coordinate the electric utility design and installation with Ron Passmore @ (803) 326-3758,

[email protected] Planning- Transportation: Pending

TRAFFIC IMPACT and ACCESS STUDY PROPOSED LEGION COLLEGIATE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL MT HOLLY ROAD ( ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared for: Legion Collegiate Academy Sanibel, FL 33957 Submitted September 2018 Prepared by:

EPC, LLC2404 Taylor RoadCayce, SC 29033

(803) 794 7018(803) 794 9216 Fax

September 4, 2018 Mr. Michael P. Miller, CPA, CFO Legion Collegiate Academy 1648 Periwinkle Way, Suite D Sanibel, FL 33957 Phone: 239 472 1323 Email: [email protected] RE: Traffic Impact and Access Study Legion Collegiate Academy

Rock Hill, SC Dear Mr. Miller: As requested, Encroachment Permit Clearinghouse (EPC) has completed a Traffic and Access Impact Study for the development of a proposed public Charter School, known as Legion Collegiate Academy to be located along Mt Holly Road within the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina. The following provides a summary of this study’s findings: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the west side of Mt Holly Road and includes two parcels totaling 49-acres #602-07-01-001 and #602-07-01-0440). The site is undeveloped with the exception of a curb return/access to/from Mt Holly Road which was constructed when Mt Holly Road was widened and grassed medians installed. This existing curb-cut is located directly opposite Glenarden Drive and provides a width of 70-feet. The project proposal is to construct a new Charter School which will provide for a total of 600-High School students grades 9th-12th. In accordance with the performa of the school, a maximum of 300: 9th- 10th grade students and 300: 11th-12th grade students will make up the student body where 9th/10th grade will be held in the morning hours (8AM-12 Noon) and 11th/12th grade will be held in the afternoon hours between 12:30 PM and 4:30 PM. Access for the development will be provided via the existing drive to/from Mt Holly Road which will be re-constructed to meet the expected needs of the School. As scheduled, this development is planned to be constructed and occupied by late 2019 for the beginning of the 2019/2020 school year. Figure 1 illustrates the general site location in relation to the regional roadway system. Figure 2 depicts the proposed development plan (Figures located at end of report).

EPC, LLC2404 Taylor RoadCayce, SC 29033

(803) 794 7018(803) 794 9216 Fax

David D. Brewer, P.E. (803) 429 5591 V. Erskine Suber, Jr. (803) 206 2265 Todd E. Salvagin (803) 361 3265

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS A comprehensive field inventory of the project study area was conducted in August 2018 after public schools were in session for the 2018/2019 school year. The field inventory included a collection of geometric data, traffic volumes and traffic control within the study area. The following sections detail the current traffic conditions and include a description of major roadways/intersections serving the site and traffic flow in close proximity to the project site. Project Study Area As identified by City and SCDOT staff, the following intersections have been required to be analyzed in order to determine project impact on the surrounding roadway network:

• Mt Holly Road at Saluda Road/Albright Road; and • Mt Holly Road at Glenarden Drive/Site Access.

The existing geometry and traffic control for the study area intersections and adjacent roadways are depicted graphically in Figure 3. It should be noted that along the entire frontage of the site (along Mt Holly Road) a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk is provided. Traffic Volumes In order to determine the existing traffic volume flow patterns within the study area, weekday morning (6:30-8:30 AM), school afternoon (11:00AM-1:00 PM) and evening PM peak (4:30-6:30 PM) period turning movement specific count data was collected for the above referenced study area intersections. In addition to these peak-hours, a 12-hour count was completed along Mt. Holly Road in order to gather hourly data for preparation of a signal warrants analysis. Figure 4 graphically depicts the Existing AM, School Afternoon and PM peak-hour traffic volumes for each of the study area intersections. Summarized count sheets for the intersections are included in the appendix of this report. FUTURE CONDITIONS Traffic analyses for future conditions have been conducted for two separate scenarios: first, 2020 No-Build conditions, which include an annual normal growth in traffic, all pertinent background development traffic, and any pertinent planned roadway/intersection improvements; and secondly, 2020 Build conditions, which account for all No-Build conditions PLUS traffic generated by the proposed charter school. No-Build Traffic Conditions Annual Growth Rate An annual growth rate of 1.5-percent per year was developed for use in this report in comparing SCDOT historical counts in the area of the site along Mt Holly Road (station #301). This 1.5-percent annual growth, which would account for all unspecified traffic growth, was applied to the Existing peak-hour traffic volumes.

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 3 Background Development As has been identified by City staff, there are no approved developments in the immediate area of the site that will significantly affect the collected peak-hour traffic volumes. In order to provide a conservative analysis framework as well as re-development projects in the area, City staff has required that a ½-percent rate be utilized . The anticipated 2020 No-Build AM and School Afternoon peak-hour traffic volumes, which include the 2-percent annual growth (sum of 1½ and ½) are shown in Figure 5. Planned Roadway Improvements Based on SCDOT, there are no planned roadway improvements in the area that would affect the study area intersections.

Site-Generated Traffic In order to accurately estimate traffic expected to be generated by the new public Charter School, actual traffic volume data from an existing Collegiate Academy (located in West Columbia, SC) has been gathered and utilized. The Gray Collegiate Academy in West Columbia has a total enrollment of 490 students at the time counts were conducted, (245 9th-10th and 245 11th-12th). Data was collected on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 for a continuous 12-hour period beginning at 7:00 AM and finishing at 7:00 PM. This data represents actual operations of how students enter and exit a similar site throughout the day which accounts for each of the three peak-hour time periods to be analyzed in this report. After upwardly adjusting the gathered data to reflect the maximum 600-student enrollment for this project (600/490=1.23 multiplier), Table 1 has been developed which depicts the anticipated site-generated traffic for the planned Legion Collegiate Academy:

Table 1 PROJECT TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY1

Legion Collegiate Academy- Rock Hill, SC

Time Period

AM Peak-Hour Enter 274 Exit 154 Total 428

School Afternoon Peak-Hour Enter 148 Exit 153 Total 301

PM Peak-Hour Enter 31 Exit 74 Total 105

1. Source: Empirical data gathered at Grays Academy in W. Columbia, Tuesday 8/28/18.

Grays has 490 students (245: 9th-10th & 245 11th-12th). Multiplier of 1.23 to

reflect Legion at 600-student max.

600 Student Legion Charter School

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 4 As shown by the above, at full occupancy of the Legion Academy (600-students), it can be expected that a total of 428 trips (274 entering, 154 exiting) would occur during the AM peak-hour. During the School Afternoon peak-hour, a total of 301 trips (148 entering, 153 exiting) can be expected and during the PM peak-hour hour of adjacent street traffic (5:00-6:00 PM), a total of 105 trips (31 entering, 74 exiting). It should be noted that these traffic generation estimates are for full 100-percent enrollment (600-students). Distribution Pattern The directional distribution of site-generated traffic on the study area roadways has been based on existing traffic volumes and review of populated areas/neighborhoods. This information was then provided to City staff for their inputs and approved for use in this report. The developed distribution pattern is shown in Table 2. This distribution pattern has been applied to the site-generated traffic volumes from Table 1 to develop the site-generated specific volumes for the study area intersections illustrated in Figure 6.

Table 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN


Roadways Direction To/From Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit

Mt Holly Road North 55 30 55 55 30 55South 25 55 25 25 55 25

Saluda Road West 15 10 15 15 10 15

Albright Road East 5 5 5 5 5 5

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

1. Based on input from school operator and existing travel patterns/concentrated residential areas.

AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-HourSchool Afternoon PM Peak-Hour

Build Traffic Conditions The site-generated traffic, as depicted in Figure 6, has been added to the respective No-Build traffic volumes (Figure 5). This has resulted in the peak-hour 2020Build traffic volumes, which are graphically depicted in Figure 7 for the 2020 Build-out of the Legion Academy. These volumes were used as the basis to determine potential improvement measures necessary to mitigate traffic impacts caused by the project. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Analysis Methodology A primary result of capacity analysis is the assignment of Level-of-Service (LOS) to traffic facilities under various traffic flow conditions. The concept of Level-of-Service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A Level-of-Service designation provides an index to the quality of traffic flow in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety.

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 5 Six Levels-of-Service are defined for each type of facility (signalized and unsignalized intersections). They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Since the Level-of-Service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such a facility may operate at a wide range of Levels-of-Service depending on the time of day, day of week, or period of a year. Capacity Analysis Results As part of this traffic study, capacity analyses have been performed at the study area intersections in order to evaluate any project-related impacts to the surrounding transportation system. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY1


Signalized Intersections Delay2 LOS3 Delay LOS Delay LOS

AM 31.4 C 31.6 C 32.1 C

NOON 31.1 C 31.4 C 31.5 C

PM 33.4 C 33.7 C 33.7 C

Unsignalized Intersection

Mount Holly Road at Glenarden Drive AM 20.8 C 21.9 C 48.3 ENOON 13.3 B 13.6 B 24.6 C

PM 17.3 C 18.0 C 37.8 E

1. Calculations completed using the 2010 HCM methodology.

2. Delay in seconds-per-vehicle.

3. Level-of-Service.

GENERAL NOTES:

2. For signalized intersections, delay is representative of the over-all weighted average of intersection approaches.

2. For unsignalized intersections, delay is representative of the minor street approach.

Saluda Road/Albright Road at Mount Holly Road

2020 Build 2020 No-BuildPeak Hour

2018 Existing

As shown in Table 3, under Existing conditions, acceptable operating levels are present at both of the study area intersections, signalized Mt Holly Road at Saluda Road and the unsignalized intersection of Mt Holly Road at Glenarden Drive. Under 2020 No-Build conditions, which include the application of the developed annual growth rate, acceptable operating levels are expected to continue at each of the study area intersections. Future Build conditions, which account for the addition of the site traffic associated with the Legion Collegiate Academy (600-students), indicate a slight increase in delay at the Mt Holly Road at Saluda Road intersection however acceptable service levels are expected to remain. The Mt Holly Road at Glenarden Drive intersection will now have an active fourth leg with development of the site access. Operations at this location are expected at a LOS E during the AM peak-hour, LOS C during the School Noon peak and a LOS E during the PM peak-hour. It should be noted that each of these delays are not on Mt Holly Road nor are the delays on Glenarden Drive; the expected delays are from the minor street left-turn movement exiting the site. It should also be noted that these delays are at the full enrollment (600-students) of the Legion Academy which may take a few years to achieve.

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSES To quantify existing traffic volumes at the future site access, twelve-hour counts were conducted in order to obtain the volume of through traffic on Mt Holly Road (SC 901) as well as Glenarden on an hourly basis. This data in combination with expectations of what the site would generate on an hour by hour basis have been used to evaluate of a set of criteria called warrants, outlined in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), published by the Federal Highway Administration. These warrants analyze a variety of conditions, primarily based on traffic volume, both on the major street Mt Holly Road and the greater minor street left-turn movement (either Glenarden Drive OR the future site access). The results are shown in Table 4:

Table 4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS a


Time 1Ae 1Bf 2g 3h

7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 801 25 48 NO NO NO NO8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 591 11 45 NO NO NO NO

9:00 AM - 10:00 AM 420 4 22 NO NO NO NO10:00 AM - 11:00 AM 429 12 29 NO NO NO NO

11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON 439 5 50 NO NO NO NO12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM 538 11 116 NO YES YES YES

1:00 PM - 2:00 PM 472 7 70 NO YES YES NO2:00 PM - 3:00 PM 517 9 89 NO YES YES YES3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 687 10 63 NO NO YES NO4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 641 14 45 NO NO NO NO5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 709 14 14 NO NO NO NO6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 560 15 55 NO NO NO NO

SIGNAL WARRANT MET NO NO YES YES

Traffic Volumes (vphb)

Minor Street (Site Access

Approach)d

MUTCD Warrant

Major

Street c

Minor Street (Glenarden

Drive)d

a. This analysis assumes the geometry of the minor street as a one-lane approach (left-turns only) and a major street speed greater than 40 miles-per-hour.

b. Vehicles-per-hour. c. The major street (Mt Holly Rd) and the volumes reflect the sum of both the northbound and southbound volumes. d. The minor street utilized in the signal warrants analysis is the greater of either the future eastbound left-turn from the site access OR

the westbound left-turn from Glenarden Drive. e. Warrant 1 (Condition A), Minimum Vehicular Volume, is satisfied for any hour if the total vehicles-per-hour on both approaches of

the major street is at least 420 and the total vehicles-per-hour on the minor street approach is at least 140 (70%). These thresholds must be satisfied for at least eight hours of the day.

f. Warrant 1 (Condition B), Interruption of Continuous Traffic, is satisfied for any hour if the total vehicles-per-hour on both approaches of the major street is at least 630 and the total vehicles-per-hour on the minor street approach is at least 70 (70%). These thresholds must be satisfied for at least eight hours of the day.

g. Warrant 2, Four Hour Volumes, is met when, for each of any four hours of the day, plotted traffic volumes fall above the appropriate curve shown in Figure 4C-2 (70%) on page 440 of the MUTCD.

h. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume Warrant, is met when, for one hour of the day, plotted traffic volumes fall above the appropriate curve shown in Figure 4C-4 (70%) on page 441 of the MUTCD.

As shown in the table, under complete Build-out/600-student enrollment of the development the Legions Collegiate Academy can be expected to meet Warrants #2 (Four-Hour) & #3 (Peak-Hour). Neither Warrants #1 or #2 (Eight-Hour) are close to being met.

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 7 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION The final phase of the analysis process is to identify mitigating measures which may either minimize the impact of the project on the transportation system. Measures considered necessary to mitigate roadway system deficiencies for each phase of development are discussed below as they relate to the impacts of the proposed project. Site Access Drive The access drive to/from Mt Holly Road was planned as part of a prior project and as such exists as a 70-foot curb-to-curb dead-end access break directly opposite Glenarden Drive. As part of this original planning, a northbound left-turn lane within the landscaped median of Mt Holly Road was also constructed which provides a storage length of approximately 200-feet and a taper length of approximately 150-feet. In reviewing the current access with the projected traffic volumes expected by the proposed Legion Collegiate Academy Charter, the following improvements are suggested:

• Northbound (Mt Holly Road) Approach: The provision of the existing 200-foot left-turn lane within Mt Holly Road is adequate to accommodate the expected volumes generated by the project. No further improvements are suggested at this time however the SCDOT ARMS Manual Fig A-9 indicates that a left-turn lane serving a school should provide 250-feet of storage;

• Southbound (Mt Holly Road) Approach: Construct a separate southbound right-turn lane for

traffic entering the site from Mt Holly Road. This lane should provide a length of 200-feet with a taper of 180-feet (Fig A-9 of SCDOT ARMS Manual, 50 mph);

• Eastbound (Site Access) Approach: Reconstruct the approach to provide a single lane entering

the site and two lanes exiting the site designated as a separate left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. Storage length for the left-turn movement should be in accordance with the SCDOT standards for schools providing 250-feet. Alignment of opposing left-turn movements from Glenarden Drive and this site access will be required;

• Westbound (Glenarden Drive) Approach: The total cross-section of this approach is

approximately 41-feet in width. This approach should be re-striped to provide a single entering lane (15-feet) and two exiting lanes designated as a separate left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane (approximately 12-ft wide each). Based on the existing volumes, the storage length of these proposed two approach lanes should be 100 to 150-feetin length and then transition back to the existing two-lane cross-section; and

• Traffic Control: Install STOP SIGN control as well as a STOP BAR for the two lane site

access approach to Mt Holly Road. Modify the Glenarden Drive approach as needed in order to maintain STOP control operations.

Monitoring of the operations and traffic flow should be periodically reviewed at this intersection as the student enrollment approaches and eventually maximizes at 600. With a 450-500 student population, STOP sign control should be sufficient. Approaching 500-student enrollment, the potential of manual control during short time periods of the peak exiting movements (AM and PM peak-hour due to heavy volumes traveling on Mt Holly Road) should be considered. At this point, the access should be reviewed in both traffic operations as well as to determine if actual traffic volumes meet Federal MUTCD signal warrant guidelines.

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 8 Operations assuming traffic signal control of this intersection indicate either a LOS B or LOS A during the studied peak hours. Off-Site Study Area Intersection As shown in Table 3, the project has only a minimal impact on the adjacent study area intersection of Saluda Road/Albright Road at Mt Holly Road which operates at acceptable conditions during both peak hours. Based on this, no mitigation is recommended at this time. On-Site Stacking SCDOT ARMs Manual, Table 4-5 mandates that schools have sufficient on-site stacking/storage to accommodate their queuing traffic during pick-up time periods. A High School of 600-students requires on-site of a minimum length of 1,500-feet. Review of the site plan indicates the provided on-site stacking area exceeds 2,000-feet, which includes double stacked lanes just prior to entering the drop-off/pick-up loop. Based on this, the development plan should accommodate all of its queuing on-site with no queuing interference to Mt Holly Road. Sight Distance Considerations The previously-cited access drive intersection should be designed/constructed to meet current applicable SCDOT standards and/or guidelines in terms of sight distance. It is assumed that this will be the responsibility of the project’s civil engineer and will be depicted by the site plan/submittal information. SUMMARY EPC has completed a Traffic Impact and Access Study relative to the proposed re-zoning and development of parcel numbers 602-07-01-001 and 602-07-01-044 located along Mt Holly Road directly opposite Glenarden Drive in order to allow the construction of a new public Charter School to be known as the Legion Collegiate Academy. As planned, the charter school will provide for a maximum student enrollment of 600-students; grades 9th-12th, and is planned to be operational for the 2019-2020 school year. Detailed analyses have been conducted for the adjacent intersections along Mt Holly Road including the signalized intersection with Saluda Road/Albright Road and the unsignalized intersection opposite the site of Mt Holly Road at Glenarden Drive. These analyses indicated that the intersection of Mt Holly Road at Saluda Road operates at acceptable service levels for each of the analyzed conditions. The unsignalized intersection of Glenarden Drive currently operates acceptably but under future Build conditions with the addition of school traffic (new fourth approach leg added to intersection), the left-turn movement exiting the school can be expected to operate with some delays during the peak hours. Recommendations have been made to the site access drive which will align opposite Glenarden Drive. These suggested improvements include physical roadway widening by adding a right-turn lane on Mt Holly Road at the site access as well as modifications to the Glenarden Drive approach to formally provide a left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane approaching Mt Holly Road. Operations for the Mt Holly Road at Glenarden Drive/site access are currently acceptable however under future conditions with the school may have some delays. Specifically the minor street left-turn movement from the Legion Collegiate Academy can be expected to operate at a LOS E when the school is at its maximum enrollment. As indicated in detail in this report, a suggested schedule has been defined which

Mr. Michael Miller September 4, 2018 Page 9 ties enrollment of the school to monitoring operations and traffic volumes at the site access (and Glenarden Drive) in order to review manual control of the intersection during peak time periods or implementation of traffic signal control if federal guidelines and approval for a traffic signal are met. If you have any questions, please contact me at 803 361 3265.

Todd E. Salvagin EPC, LLC Attachments.

Legion Collegiate Academy

Charter school1030, 1070, 1088 Mt Holly Road

20180777

Traffic Analysis -

Plan Review Comments

Zoning - Eric Hawkins - [email protected] - 803-329-8763 Approved

Review Comments:

Infrastructure - Roadway - Brandon Wiggins -

[email protected] - 803-329-7073

Approved

Review Comments:

Transportation - Cliff Goolsby - [email protected] -

803-329-8722

Conditional

Review Comments:

Comments pertaining to the recommended mitigation section of this study

1) It would be beneficial for this study to include the queue length information for the different studied time

periods.

2) Northbound (Mt Holly Rd): While the study identifies the existing left turn lane on SC 901 as being adequate

to accommodate the left turn traffic entering the site, SCDOT will need to agree to not making any changes as

the SCDOT ARMS manual indicates a 250' left turn lane is needed for a school.

3) Southbound (Mt Holly Rd): Staff agrees with the recommended right turn lane.

4) Eastbound (Site Access): Staff has coordinated with SCDOT regarding the site plan. SCDOT recommends

a boulevard design for the access road into and out of the site that would incorporate 2 lanes entering the site

which is different than the single inbound lane in this recommendation. Staff agrees with the recommendation

to provide a minimum of 250' of left turn storage exiting the site. City and SCDOT staff have concerns with the

site layout. The layout associated with this study shows an access to the visitor/staff parking lot within the

storage or taper of the lanes for exiting traffic. No access should occur in the storage or taper of the exiting

lanes.

5) Westbound (Glenarden Dr): Staff agrees with restriping of the Glenarden approach to allow for 1 entering

lane and 2 exiting lanes. The recommendation to stripe the exiting lanes on Glenarden as a separate left turn

lane and a shared through/right lane potentially may need to be adjusted due to the geometry in the

intersection related to the boulevard design of the school access. To be determined during civil design.

6) Staff agrees with utilizing stop control on the side streets at the site access intersection with SC 901. As

this study reveals that there is a possibility that the school's full attendance may justify the need for the

installation of a traffic signal, the school should be responsible for funding the implementation of the traffic

signal when it becomes warranted. SCDOT will provide the official assessment of when/if a traffic signal is

warranted.

7) As this study mentions, there may be a need for manual control of the intersection during the peak traffic

times. If this occurs, it will be the financial responsibility of school.

8) In a recent meeting with the developer, City staff, and SCDOT staff, it was mentioned that this school could

have 600-700 students. it is understood that the maximum allowable enrollment for this school will be 600

Page 2 of 39/26/2018

Legion Collegiate Academy

Charter school1030, 1070, 1088 Mt Holly Road

20180777

Traffic Analysis -

students. If somehow this changes, and the school enrollment does exceed the previously understood

maximum of 600 students, an amendment to this study will likely be needed to ensure that all the proper

improvements have been identified.

Page 3 of 39/26/2018

m e m o r a n d u m to: re: a g e n d a

Documents